k Wash 




I 






Class . 
Book. 



-^!5 



Copyright N°- 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



**-**-, 



% 






'0£ 



m 



The Washington Party 



"Shall the People Rule?" 



-IF SO- 



Parties Must be Destroyed 



—by- 
FRANK J. SCHNECK 



EXCELSIOR COMMERCIAL INSTITUTE 

ROCHESTER, N. Y. 
1909 



J)f 2 2 8 8 
.§3 



COPYRIGHT I909 

BY 

FRANK J. SCHNECK 



©AUG^I 1909 
AUa 2.8.1409 



PREFACE 



THE WASHINGTON PARTY? 

Another party ! Yes, another party for another bat- 
tle. Are there not enough parties now ? Yes, there are 
too many. There should be just one, and that one should 
entrust the power of government to the people, so that 
thereafter there shall be none. Parties must be destroyed. 

Washington said, "The alternate domination of one 
faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge 
natural to party dissension, which in different ages and 
countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is 
itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a 
more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders 
and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of 
men to security and repose in the absolute power of an 
individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing 
faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, 
turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation 
on the ruins of public liberty." 

For sixty years party spirit burned in the hearts of the 
people, and was made use of by the politicians, and the 
result was the great Civil War, a result that Washington 
might have feared, but that he would probably not have 
imagined. 

Lincoln said the government could not remain half- 
slave and half-free. It cannot be governed long by the 
people in theory, but by parties in fact. The government 
under the constitution must provide a means for the people 
to govern themselves, or the parties and bosses will out- 
grow the constitution and set up a government of their own 
despotism on the ruins of the republic. 

The people have left the management of the govern- 
ment to the parties almost entirely, and a more dangerous 
thing than the Civil War may come upon us. Through 
the dry rot of democracy may come the peaceful revolution 
from the republic to the despotism, with the people too 



bound by the slavery of party to break their chains, too 
confident in their safety to open their eyes to the danger 
they are in, too sound asleep in the cradle of party to give 
heed when the house is burning down. 

During the last presidential campaign, Mr. Bryan said 
the issue was, "Shall the people rule?" 

That is a very important question. That was the issue 
with King John, in England, in 1 2 1 5 , when the people es- 
tablished their Magna Charta. That was the issue with 
King George III, in 1776, when the people established the 
Declaration of Independence. That is the question now 
with King Party, when the people shall establish their 
authority by organizing themselves as the government. 
We were freed from the King and his retainers. We shall 
be freed from parties and their politicians. Parties must 
be destroyed. 

The question, ''Shall the people rule?", implies that 
they ought to rule, but that they do not rule. The purpose 
of this book is to show that they do not rule and how they 
may rule. 

Nearly all of our great men say parties are necessary. 

Many of our great men and most of the thinking people 
say parties are failures. 

Why are they necessary? Why are they failures? 
What is the remedy for the necessity and the failure? 

I bring arguments to show how the people may rule 
without parties. There is a general movement toward more 
direct government by the people. That movement we may 
call the Washington Party, for it will lead us to a condition 
in which there shall be no parties, and presidents will be 
elected by all the people as Washington was. 

Parties must be destroyed. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I 
Some Pictures ------ 7 

Anglo-Saxons— Landing of the Pilgrims— Declaration of 
Independence — Washington's Inauguration — Civil War 
—Gettysburg— The Last Campaign— Feb. 22, 1909, Par- 
liamentary Assemblies. 

CHAPTER II 
The Rise of the Republic - 18 

CHAPTER III 
Interregnum - - - - - - 19 

CHAPTER IV 
Party Rule ------ 20 

CHAPTER V 
Party Government is a Failure - - - 22 

The Indictment — Government by Parties Selfish— Makes 
us Deceitful— Practical Proof— People Dissatisfied- 
Legislators go Home — Panics — Personal Government — 
Some Failures — A Contrast— Corruption— The Proof- 
Where they Succeed— An Oasis — District School 
Government. 

CHAPTER VI 
Theory of Government by Parties - 45 

Principle of Representation— Theory of the Party- 
Officers and Parties — Principles not Men — How the 
Organization Acts. 

CHAPTER VII 

Practice in Government by Parties - - 53 

A Young Man Enlightened — Some Authorities— The 
Growth of Bosses — Favoritism— What is the Boss ? — How 
Parties Govern. 

CHAPTER VIII 

Party Government a Necessary Failure - 69 

The Theory— The Practice— The Necessity— We Cannot 
Express Ourselves — We Want to Vote for Principles— 
Cannot Combine Principles — Sample Election — Pooling 
Issues— Rule of the Majority— One at a Time — Free 
Ballot — Throwing Away Votes— The Government Farm — 
Third Parties — Failure in Party Theory. 

CHAPTER IX 
Organization ------ 98 

Shall the People Rule?— Government by Caucus. 
CHAPTER X 
Necessity of Parties in Government - 106 

The Testimony— The Flat Earth— The Class Struggle— 
The Government Struggle — Two Parties— What is the 
Difference?— What For? 



CHAPTER XI 
The Remedy - - - - • - - 120 

Election of Principles— Organization— The I^ever — 
Initiative— The Feast — Self-Preservation— I^ocal Self- 
Government — Party is a Private Affair — Outside the Gate 
— Wheels — Danger in Delay — People as Figures and 
Numbers — Model Election. 

CHAPTER XII 
The Platform ------ 144 

CHAPTER XIII 
Election of President - - - - 150 

Plan for Choosing President— Election of Presidential 
Electors — What the Founders Wanted to Avoid— How 
the People were Supposed to Choose President— How 
they do with Parties, in Theory, in Practice — How they 
would do with the Washington Party — Popular Vote — 
Why was the Plan Adopted ? — My Part. 

CHAPTER XIV 
Direct Nominations ----- 169 

Tower of Babel— Must be Parties— The Fog— The 
Contrast — Just Begun — Directing Nominations — Directed 
Nominations— What is the Difference? — Governor Hughes 
— Motive. 

CHAPTER XV 
Government by Petition - - - 204 

How it will Work — Assemble — Nomination by Petition — 
Right to Petition— Shall the People Rule ? 

CHAPTER XVI 

School House Assemblies - - - 216 

Public Opinion Enlightened — Assemblies of the People — 
Use of School Houses. 

CHAPTER XVII 
Parties and the State - - - - 224 

Theory of Parties— Parties and the Constitution— What 
is the State ? 

CHAPTER XVIII 
Saving the Constitution - - - 232 

By Parties — Saving the Party. 

CHAPTER XIX 
The Danger ------ 236 

Necessity of Being Kicked by the Mule — Principles — The 

Day we Celebrate. 

CHAPTER XX 
The Opportunity ----- 242 

What We Want— What We Would Do— What I,abor 

Organizations Teach — The Party Tree — Education of the 

People — Making a Difference — The Galley Slave — 

Development of the People's Power. 



CHAPTER I. 
SOME PICTURES. , 

Anglo-Saxons. 

It is a beautiful Spring day and a band of men are 
ascending a grassy hill and gathering under a large tree. 
They are dressed in clothes spun of flax, some of which are 
bright colored. They wear helmets on their heads, and their 
feet are covered with sandals made of the hides of animals. 
Each bears on his left arm a shield and in his right he car- 
ries a spear. Near by is a little village of log cabins sur- 
rounded with cultivated gardens and pasture lands on which 
are grazing goats. There are fields of rye from which the 
villagers will make bread. Surrounding the hill is a hedge 
and a ditch to keep away intruders. The nlen are going up 
the Moot hill to gather under their sacred tree. 

They meet. One of their number comes out and calls 
them to order. They stand up, each with spear in hand. 
They are the village assembled as the government. They 
talk over questions and decide them. Sometimes they shout, 
and sometimes they express approval by clashing their spears 
against their shields. They decide how the village lands 
shall be divided up among the villagers for cultivation. They 
appoint men to build or repair the hedge and the ditch. They 
admit young men to the assembly, who are then called 
"Freemen." All freemen have a right to talk and vote in the 
meeting. They have rules of order and are one of the first 
parliamentary bodies in the world. 

This meeting is one of hundreds that were held every 
year over two thousand years ago in Northwestern Europe. 
Since that time similar meetings have been held in all the 
English speaking nations, but never have there been meet- 
ings that were more impressive than these nor more instruc- 



8 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

tive. They make simple the principle that all government 
derives its authority from the consent of those governed. 
Such assemblies were pure democracies. Those were exam- 
ples of perfect government. Every man took part and 
every man abided by the decision of the majority. 

Our civilization has risen much higher than the rude 
foundation laid by our ancestors, but our government has not 
kept pace with the general advance. And it will not rise to 
its true proportions until it is built on the ancient founda- 
tions of popular assemblies of the people. These are the 
rocks on which the temple of government must be built, and 
the gates of party shall not prevail against it. 

Landing of the Pilgrims. 

It is the 12th of December, 1620. Forty-one men with 
their families anchor their ship, the Mayflower, near 
Plymouth Rock. In front of them is an unknown forest, 
stretching in all directions and filled with savages whom 
winter has driven from the shore. It is a cold and un- 
pleasant landing, but the search for liberty and freedom 
makes any place pleasant, any place where freedom is found. 
This little company of men before landing drew up a con- 
stitution for their government. This document is signed 
by all the men and makes them a parliamentary assembly 
similar to those of their ancestors of Northwestern Europe. 

Their agreement is short. By it they combine them- 
selves into a political body to enact such just and equal laws 
as shall be thought most meet for the general good of the 
Colony. "Unto which we promise all due submission." 

Declaration of Independence. 

Three million people are living on the Atlantic Coast in 

small cities and villages, stretching for a thousand miles 

from Massachusetts to Georgia. In front of them are three 

thousand miles of sea, over which it is difficult to travel for 



SOME PICTURES 9 

they have no steamships. In their rear are three thousand 
miles of forest full of savages, who are ready to descend 
upon the people and burn their dwellings, day or night. 
They have no railroads, telegraphs or newspapers. What 
happens at one end of the country is not known at the 
other end for months or a year. Beyond the sea is the 
British government to which the people look for guidance. 
They are brothers to the King's subjects and look to the 
King to give them the same rights that he gives his sub- 
jects in England, but they are disappointed. The King 
looks upon them as subjects of his government but not citi- 
zens. They want to stretch their hands across the sea and 
co-operate with their brothers in England in the government, 
but the King refuses. They are denied representation in the 
government, but are promised the strong hand of the English 
government over them. The people are descendants of those 
described in the last paragraph, and it would be contrary to 
nature if they should voluntarily submit to be governed with- 
out their consent. 

They have held their little town meetings in school 
houses or churches, have talked over their condition and 
have selected their best men to speak for them in a meeting 
at which men from the other little towns will be present. 
Their largest city is Philadelphia, and there these represen- 
tatives of the people meet to discuss their condition and to 
find a remedy for the evils that have come over them. 

We find them praying for the right to participate in 
their government, and being refused. Now we see them 
assembled to declare their right to govern themselves. They 
do so in the face of obstacles that would overwhelm a race 
not used to governing themselves and overcoming their dif- 
ficulties. 

In defiance of the English King and parliament the 
representatives of the people declared that all men are 



io THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

created equal in their right to participate in their government. 
They declared their independence of all authority of the Eng- 
lish King, and in support of their declaration they pledged to 
each other their fortunes and their lives. Philadelphia is the 
Moot hill, the sacred tree, of the descendants of the Anglo- 
Saxons who had come to America. 

Thus was the Declaration of Independence adopted in 
1776 and Liberty proclaimed throughout all the land and to 
all the inhabitants thereof. 

Washington s Inauguration. 

It is the 30th of April, 1789. George Washington is 
inaugurated President of the United States at New York 
City. The colonies that declared themselves independent, 
have won their independence under his brave leadership. 

They have formed a government in which the people are 
to rule, and the peopel have chosen Washington with one 
voice to be their chief executive. The country is small and 
weak, with enemies at home and abroad, and the people are 
suffering the results of a long, hard war, but they have con- 
fidence in themselves. They are full of the fire of self- 
government. They are beginning the first act in the drama 
of representative democratic government, and they choose 
the "Father of his Country" as their first leader. 

He has proved his right to be called one of the greatest 
statesmen of the age. He could not foresee the greatness of 
his country's growth. He could not foretell the miserable- 
ness of the great civil war, but he realized that the country 
was destined to greatness and that its worst enemies would 
be political parties. 

In his farewell address to the people, as a warning to 
them, he used these words : "I have already intimated to you 
the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference 
to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. 



SOME PICTURES n 

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you 
in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of 
the spirit of party generally * * * 

"The alternate domination of one faction over 
another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party 
dissension, which in different ages and countries has per- 
petrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful 
despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and 
permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which 
result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security 
and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner 
or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or 
more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to 
the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public 
liberty. 

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind 
(which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), 
the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are 
sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to 
discourage and restrain it." 

Civil War. 

Since the Declaration of Independence the little strip of 
country has spread from one ocean to the other. It has 
increased in population from three million to thirty million, 
but among these thirty million are four million slaves. We 
admire the courage of the signers of the Declaration of 
Independence. We admire their wisdom at that early day 
in declaring all men equal, but what can we think of their 
descendants when they have grown to greatness holding four 
million people as slaves. We see these slaves held in only 
one part of the country and this part dominated by what is 
called a political party. Abraham Lincoln comes on the 
scene. The Civil War ensues. During this war he writes the 



12 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Emancipation Proclamation, which sets the slaves free, and 
the war confirms his act. The government is preserved. 
The principles of the Declaration of Independence are 
reaffirmed, slavery is destroyed. 

But what was the baleful influence that brought the 
two sections of a peaceful country together in the most 
terrible civil war known to history? Why was it with a 
government formed on the principles of the Declaration of 
Independence, formed by men who fully believed in those 
principles, established by a constitution that reiterated those 
principles, the people should go to the extreme of civil war 
over the question whether four million residents of the coun- 
try should be freemen or slaves ? The demon that led the peo- 
ple to this dark deed, was political party. It was unknown 
to the ancient Saxons, unknown to the signers of the Decla- 
ration, but it was known in all its hideousness to the people 
of 1860. 

The war has cost $2,000 for each slave, the life of one 
free man for every four slaves, four years of hate, hate that 
has for its satisfaction nothing but blood, and a generation 
of anguish, poverty, and tears. It was indeed the most 
uncivilized exhibition ever offered to the reflection of man. 

The civil war is but an apple picked from the party tree, 
and it is a tree that has a lusty growth and bears much fruit. 

Gettysburg. 

A great battle has been fought. Thousands have been 
slain. The feelings of the people have been tense with fear- 
ful excitement. The prospect of war to the point of exhaus- 
tion and extermination, has just passed. On the field of 
Gettysburg the great hearted President of the nation gives 
us these words : 

"Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought 
forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and 



SOME PICTURES 13 

dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that 
nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long 
endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We 
have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting- 
place for those who here gave their lives that that nation 
might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should 
do this. But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we can- 
not consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave 
men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated 
it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world 
will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it 
can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, 
rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they 
who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is 
rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining 
before us, — that from these honored dead we take increased 
devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full 
measure of devotion, — that we here highly resolve that these 
dead shall not have died in vain, — that this nation, under God, 
shall have a new birth of freedom, — and that government of 
the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish 
from the earth. " 

The nation was established for liberty and happiness, 
but the sword was drawn to write the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence in blood. The nation was preserved with another 
declaration of liberty, but the sword was again unsheathed. 
The nation must now be delivered to the people to be cared 
for hereafter by them as their only means of safety and sure 
guide to what is greatest in life, but the blade will remain in 
its scabbard. The pen is mightier than the sword, the ballot 
is greater than the bullet, parties must be detsroyed and the 
people shall rule. 



14 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

The Last Campaign. 
It is 1908. The war is forgotten. The people of the whole 
country believe the principles of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. They are very much interested in their right to 
govern themselves. They have daily newspapers, and are 
hourly informed of what is going on in the political world. 
For three months they are reading the papers, attending pub- 
lic meetings, arguing among themselves. The little handful 
of men who went up to the sacred tree on the Moot hill have 
now grown to be sixteen million men. They cannot now 
gather under the tree, but they go into the booth, one by one, 
and pull the lever or make a mark under the party column, 
which means "I give my consent to be governed, I pass under 
the Yoke." After the three months' schooling (shouting and 
marching) they have had in the campaign, they are prepared 
to vote. The managers of the two great parties have picked 
out their leaders, and now the sixteen million freemen take 
the three months to seriously consider which of the two lead- 
ers shall be appointed leader of all the people. That is the 
question they are called on to decide. Their decision may be 
that the man picked out by the oracle of one of the parties, 
shall be ruler of us all. If they do not come to this decision, 
they must decide that the oracle of the other party who 
picked himself out shall govern us all. It is indeed a momen- 
tous question. 

February 22, 1909. 

On February 22, 1909, the newspapers reported a speech 
by the Governor of New York, in which he said : 

"The easiest way for special interests to secure favors 
and to get the best of the laws is through a treaty with a 
party machine ; that is, by dealing with the one man or with 
the few men who in any given community have secured such 
control * * * 



SOME PICTURES 15 

'That the present method of nominating party candi- 
dates by delegates at conventions is, in the main, a farce, is 
likewise indisputable. Upon this question of fact the people 
of the state, with a knowledge of the actual practices of con- 
ventions, are competent to reach a conclusion. Sophistry 
cannot obscure the actual working of our convention system. 
Delegates generally are like a stage populace who are 
selected for the purpose of shouting lustily when they get the 
cue from the leading actors in the political drama. And 
they seldom play any other part. You have in New York 
City an object lesson of political domination, notorious 
throughout the world, which shows not only the possibilities 
but the logical results of our present system. And in our 
up-state counties also there are local oligarchies and despot- 
isms. Not long ago Senator Depew, in a candid speech at 
the final ceremonies in the "Amen Corner" of the old Fifth 
Avenue Hotel, is reported to have said (and I do not under- 
stand that the accuracy of the report has ever been ques- 
tioned) : 'It has often been asked where the real capital of 
the state of New York was located. Well, since before the 
time many of you were born, the capital of this state has been 
right here where I am standing * * * There have been 
many conventions at Saratoga, when the whole state waited 
breathlessly for 900 delegates to decide on a ticket — which 
was made up complete and in apple-pie order right in this 
corner/ 

"There are other nooks and recesses of similar power, 
although the old "Amen Corner" has passed away. There 
is no need to deal with these obvious facts. The question is, 
what shall we do to correct the present abuses ?" 

Parties must be destroyed. 

Parliamentary Assemblies. 
This morning, February 22nd, Washington's Birthday, 
there are in the newspapers several accounts of political cau- 



16 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

cuses held in towns in New York State. The accounts are 
the most interesting reading seen in the paper in a long time. 
They tell of the members of the two great parties meeting in 
certain halls at certain hours of the day, choosing a chair- 
man and other officers, making motions, nominating candi- 
dates for town offices and appointing committees. This 
description takes us back in history two thousand years or 
more, to the time when our ancestors held similar meetings 
in Northwestern Europe. We have already described the 
meetings of the Anglo-Saxons under their Sacred Tree on 
the Moot hill, and their choosing their officers and making 
their laws. The town caucuses are an outgrowth of these 
ancient meetings, just as the people who attend the town 
assemblies are descendants of the people who attended the 
historic "tun" meetings. It is the kind of government these 
people always will have if they continue to be free and true 
to their nature. It is the kind of government the American 
nation wants. It is American Democracy. 

These meetings are held to some extent in the towns in 
the State of New York. Suppose they were held in every 
town in the United States once or twice a year. Suppose all 
the people in their respective towns attended the meetings 
and took active part in them the way our ancestors did long 
ago. It would be one of the grandest pictures in the history 
of the world. To think of all the men twenty-one years of 
age in a population of ninety million, meeting on the same 
day in their little town halls or school houses to discuss ques- 
tions of government and to pick out officers to do their bid- 
ding and execute their wishes ! To picture this is the expres- 
sion of the dreams of Democracy. Those who have built up 
a perfect government in their visions could not have beheld 
a more perfect scene than this. It would be the whole coun- 
try turned for one day into a school. There the people would 
meet to educate themselves, and to give voice to the opinions 



SOME PICTURES 17 

they had formed during the previous year's study. They 
would be inspired to do their best work. They would have 
thought out the problems of the day. They would have 
become acquainted with the best men. There would be a 
natural pride in understanding their condition and in giving 
intelligent expression to their opinions. Here w r ould be the 
government assembled, the people clothed with the mantle 
of authority, the democracy pure and perfect. 

We have the canvas. Shall we paint the picture upon 
it? Shall the people rule? 




18 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER II. 
THE RISE OF THE REPUBLIC. 

In 1619 the first representative assembly in America was 
organized in Virginia. In 1620 the Pilgrims formed a pure 
democracy at Plymouth. For many years the people of 
Massachusetts were governed as a pure democracy. The 
people met to make the laws, and when the colony grew too 
large to actually meet, the people of the towns assembled 
and chose delegates to meet in place of all the people. The 
Declaration of Independence says that all men are equal in 
the right to govern themselves, that it is their right and duty 
to organize a government through which they can express 
their desires. The revolutionary war made the declaration 
effective. It made it the greatest legal document in the 
world. The American Constitution is the body of which the 
Declaration of Independence is the spirit. This Constitution 
is the trunk of the tree of self-government through which 
the sun of liberty forces the sap of political life. 

The colonists came to America for freedom and faced 
all difficulties to secure freedom. But the principles of 
monarchy were growing strong in England. It is often 
said that it rains on the Fourth of July. In 1776, it poured. 
The shooting of 1776 rent the clouds of despotism that had 
gathered thick above the colonies and they poured down their 
most copious showers. But the clouds were shattered, the 
sun shone through and the rain ceased. The plant of self- 
government that started under the care of the Anglo-Saxons 
in their little tuns now became the great tree of American 
Liberty to spread its branches over the continent and to shed 
its perfume throughout the world. 

Washington was chosen the first President under the 
Constitution to give it force and to guard the unfolding buds 
of the tree of representative democracy. He was chosen by 
the people. There were no parties. But parties have come, 
and they must be destroyed. 



INTERREGNUM 19 

CHAPTER III 

INTERREGNUM 



20 



THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER IV 

PARTY RULE 




NOTES ON CHAPTERS 21 

Notes on Chapters III and IV. 

That blank page is the most eloquent in the history of 
the world. It shows what the people have done. They were 
ready to rule and they halted. Their hands seem to have 
been tied. They have done nothing in government. What 
disease has withered their hands? What has put the gag 
in their mouths? Who has put the sleeping potion in their 
drink? The plant of liberty has struggled up from the 
ground and established itself in fertile soil. The time for 
blossoming has come. The buds are there, but the beauty 
of the flower does not appear, there is no fruit. What is 
the worm at the root? 

That black page tells the story. It is next in eloquence 
to the preceding one. The record is as dark as the ink in 
which it is printed. If it could only be blotted out, but it 
must stand — a record of deeds too black to put into words. 
It can only be expressed by utter blackness. A few words 
will bring to the imagination what the pen cannot make 
clear ; civil war, graft, the pauper and the trust, the man who 
cannot get work, and the man who has more money than he 
can spend. All men were created equal. What has made the 
difference between the starving child in the sweat shop and 
the capitalist in his five million dollar palace ? 

But the stones that would build pyramids we shall make 
into school houses. Instead of tombs of despots we shall 
build many houses for the people living. Instead of ruins of 
Empires we shall complete the roof of the Republic. Instead 
of the silence of dead civilization, we shall hear the voice of 
the people preparing the rule of the kingdom of heaven on 
earth. 

"Vox populi ; Vox Dei/' 



22 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER V. 
PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE. 
The Indictment. 

When a man is accused of doing a public wrong he is 
given a hearing before a grand jury, and if considered guilty 
is indicted of the crime. The people acting as the Grand 
Jury have considered the actions of political parties and have 
brought in an indictment of failure, incompetency, deception 
and graft. 

When an officer betrays his trust, he may be impeached 
by the judicial authorities. The intelligence of the people 
is the Supreme Court of our government, and this court 
impeaches political parties with failure, fraud, deception, 
murder and all the crimes in the political calendar. 

The first President warned the people against the terrible 
effects of party rule and pictured a condition which we hope 
will never come to pass, but which as he said we should ever 
keep in mind. 

Jefferson, who is called the founder of one of our 
parties, seeing the evils this party government would bring 
over us, said: "That government is best which governs 
least." 

The emancipator of the slaves said that the civil war, 
brought on by party bosses, consecrated our lives to the high 
endeavor that government of the people, by the people and 
for the people should not perish from the earth. There is no 
more memorable scene in history than that of Lincoln stand- 
ing on the bloody field of Gettysburg in the midst of a terri- 
ble war, reminding the people of the awful disaster, brought 
to them and the country through the excess of party passion. 

On the trial of those indictments against the party, we 
bring into court as our witnesses Presidents, Governors, Con- 
gressmen, Senators and candidates for these offices. The 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 23 

whole mass of the people are of the opinion that the people 
do not rule, that government by party is a failure. If we talk 
with men on the street, they say it does not make any dif- 
ference which party is in power, that everything is graft, that 
the bosses have everything mapped out, and that no consider- 
ation is given to the welfare of the people. 

Each candidate for President denounces the officers 
elected by the other party as being in league with certain 
interests and against the interests of the mass of the people. 
A political campaign speech is a fault-finding tirade against 
the opposite party. Every speech made is an indictment of 
party government for incompetency. No party platform is 
satisfactory, and no intelligent citizen who thinks of what is 
being done, is satisfied with the conduct of public affairs. 
Those who are out of office are thoroughly dissatisfied with 
those in. Those who are in office realize that the people are 
dissatisfied and promise if they are left in office they will 
immediately institute reforms. Just one illustration to show 
the utter incompetency of parties to rule and to give the peo- 
ple what is required. For forty years the tariff question has 
been prominent in American politics. It was the only ques- 
tion in two presidential campaigns. In 1892 the Democratic 
candidate received the greatest popular endorsement that had 
been given to any man. There was a revolution in party 
membership. It was plainly evident that the people wanted 
the tariff reduced. The slight revision that followed this 
election was unsatisfactory to everybody. Those who count 
themselves democrats have been ever since asking for 
another revision. Those who manage the republican party 
have insisted that a revision is necessary, and in the last cam- 
paign promised unequivocally to revise the tariff "imme- 
diately." Now, if the tariff should be revised immediately to 
satisfy the demand of justice, has not the party in power, 
which has been in absolute control for twelve years, been 



24 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

guilty of misuse of power ? Could there be a better illustra- 
tion of failure and of the refusal of parties to manage the 
government as the people would have it ? 

Government by Parties Selfish. 

Government by parties develops party spirit or makes 
us bigots. It destroys independent thinking and therefore it 
destroys real government. Under rule by party, we become 
partisans instead of patriots. We cheer for the party and 
not for the State. There are many partisans who are willing 
that the other party should wreck the government that their 
side may have a chance to win. The interest of the individual 
in his party becomes superior to his interest in the State. 

Every man would rather please the people than to dis- 
please them, would rather do something for their benefit 
than for their injury, but he will not let slip an opportunity to 
better himself and his party. The man who does not strive 
to advance himself has too little spirit to be an officer. It is 
not supposed that when an opportunity presents itself, a man 
will let this opportunity pass by. When Mr. Croker was 
before a New York investigating committee he said in answer 
to questions as to his public acts, "I work for my own pocket 
all the time." 

The government is for all, but the government can be 
of much more assistance to a man of great wealth than it can 
be to a poor man. The laborer must work for his wages. A 
trust magnate may make several million dollars by simply 
getting some law passed that will grant him special privi- 
leges. 

This law may be a few cents detriment to each laborer, 
but a few million dollars benefit to one man of great wealth. 
The laborer cannot make a special appeal to the government 
in his behalf, but the man who is to be benefitted by several 
million dollars can well afiford to employ skilled lawyers and 
lobbyists to present his case to those in public office. I will 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 25 

quote from Governor Hughes : "The easiest way for special 
interests to secure favors and to get the best of the laws is 
through a treaty with the party machine ; that is, by dealing 
with the one man or with the few who in any given com- 
munity have secured such control/' That is not only the 
easiest way, it is the way. 

President Roosevelt said that he and Mr. Harriman 
were "practical men/' and he asked Mr. Harriman to come 
down to Washington to see him while he was writing his 
message to Congress. 

Mr. Harriman says: "Newspaper men are crooks, and 
I can buy them ; whenever I want legislation from the legis- 
lature I can buy it ; I can buy Congress, and, if necessary, 
can buy the courts." Of course he can. Most of the public 
officers are lawyers, they are attorneys for those who can hire 
them. If they will try to convict an innocent man of some 
crime for money, why will they not pass some law by which 
a man may improve his business, if he will divide the profits 
of that business with the lawyer? 

If we had no parties could our public officers be as easily 
approached? The party organization makes it much easier 
for those who seek special privileges to secure them. Our 
public officers are indebted first to the party leaders. The 
approach to public officers is made through the party leaders. 
It was because Croker and Piatt could manage deals that 
they were leaders. Their leadership consisted in getting 
favors from those who had the money to pay and in getting 
the pay. The government of the party is necessarily in the 
hands of a few, and the few can always be reached more 
easily than the many. 

In history we read of Kings who sold their power to 
barons, satraps, and brigands. Those who bought the royal 
authority exercised it for their own good. The power of 
government was in their hands, the same as the power of 



26 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

government now is in the hands of the politicians. The rela- 
tion of the people to the brigands was the same as the rela- 
tion of the people is now to our political leaders. Govern- 
ment is power over the people, and those who possess the 
power will use it over the people, and use it for their own 
good. To say that government by parties is for the people 
is simply a contradiction. When we see clearly just what a 
party is, we will see what government by party is, and we 
will see that such government cannot be for the people. 

It Makes Us Deceitful 

The arguments that are brought forward during a presi- 
dential campaign are illustrations of the way that parties per- 
vert the popular mind. The stump speakers, the newspapers 
and the members of the party generally, argue their side in a 
way contrary to all rules of logic. They would never think 
of considering any business question in the same way they 
do their political questions. They could not bring their minds 
to reason on any business proposition in that way. For 
twenty-five years some of the brightest men of the country 
have been telling the people that the foreigner pays the tariff 
tax, and try to make the people believe it. They do believe 
it. If there were no parties such a proposition as that the 
foreigner pays the tariff, would be too ridiculous for anybody 
to bring up, but under the sanction of the party platform, it is 
the belief of millions of our voters. On the other hand, the 
Democratic speakers, papers and voters argued that they 
want a tariff for revenue only, that they are opposed to pro- 
tection, but they say they do not want free trade. The words 
"free trade" are enough to scare the American people. The 
Republican managers have worked up a scare and the Dem- 
ocrats have been scared by them. If there were no parties, 
the proposition of free trade would be about as fearful as the 
proposition to introduce some labor-saving machine or a new 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 27 

invention that would add greatly to the prosperity of the 
country. 

During the last campaign it was pointed out that the 
South has been Democratic for years and that the kind of 
rule that obtained in the South would be the kind of rule 
that we could expect if the Democrats were entrusted with 
power in the Nation. Could any argument be more devoid 
of sense? The policies that the national Democratic party 
proposed are entirely outside of State authority. If every 
man in the South were a Democrat, those States could not 
put in operation one of the principles the National Democ- 
racy advocates. The whole country is under the same sys- 
tem of national laws, and if the South is backward in civili- 
zation, it has grown backward under the same laws that the 
prosperous North has grown forward. Does anyone imagine 
that a Democratic city in the North is any worse than a 
Republican city or that a Republican city in the South is any 
better or worse than a Democratic city ? 

How the party platform makes us believe or makes us 
try to believe is shown by the Democratic Platform of 1896. 
At that time the mass of Democrats did not believe in free 
silver. But the advocates of free silver secured control of 
the party organization under the influence of a financial 
panic, and made the platform a declaration for the free coin- 
age of silver. What was the result on the minds of the mass 
of Democrats? If they were true party men they believed 
free silver was right. If the platform had declared for 
"gold," they would have believed in "gold". This shows how 
completely the mind of the partisan is dominated by the plat- 
form of his party. The influence of a church dogma on 
belief is no stronger than that of a political platform. 

Why is it that the people of one State believe in a high 
tariff and those of the next State, whose interests are iden- 
tical, believe in free trade? Why is it that people of one 



28 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

ward in one city are nearly all Democrats and the people of 
the next ward are nearly all Republicans? Why, it is the 
same reason that the people in one ward may be nearly all 
Germans and the people in the next ward nearly all Irish. 
They were born that way. How can a German help being 
one ? How can a born Republican be a Democrat ? If I am 
a Democrat, what do I believe? I first find out what I am 
expected to believe, and that is what I do believe. If my 
Republican neighbor presents any argument tending to show 
that his party is right, it is my duty to think up some argu- 
ments to beat him, and that is all party organization is for. 
It has nothing to do with the merits of the case, it has only 
to do with winning a case. 

When a lawyer of the criminal goes before the jury to 
secure his client's freedom, he pays no attention to truth and 
the merits of the case. His object is to free his client, and 
whatever will free his client he brings forth, and whatever 
will tend to convict his client, he conceals. 

When two or more people play cards, they conceal their 
hands and try to win by deception and luck. The whole 
success of the game depends on the deception, and this is 
precisely the same in politics. The politicians do not show 
their hands. 

Practical Proof. 

If the men of the Colonial period could come back now, 
and without knowing what form of government we have, 
could read our papers, and talk with the people, what would 
be their impressions? What would be the impressions of 
any people who should consider our conditions without con- 
sidering our form of government, not thinking that this is a 
government of the people, by the people and for the people ? 
What would be their conclusions? 

They would read and hear of the extravagance in public 
office, of billion dollar Congresses, of one-hundred million 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 29 

dollar canals, of the swarm of public officers, commission- 
ers, etc., feeding at the expense of the people, and they would 
say : 'These people are being robbed by their officers, such 
taxation is tyranny." 

They would go into our courts to see the poor man 
fined for his little crime of stealing a loaf of bread, and the 
man of great wealth set free for stealing one-hundred- thou- 
sand dollars entrusted to his care by depositors in our 
national banks. They would see the great corporations 
brazenly defying the law and paying sharp lawyers one thou- 
sand dollars a day to thwart justice. They would say: 
'These people are judged by jurists who award justice 
according to the weight of the contribution placed on the 
scales of the justices." 

They would see the little children grinding out their 
lives at the factory wheels, the mothers in the sweat shops, 
and they would say : "Why are the masters so cruel to their 
slaves, they are not so cruel to their horses. It must be that 
the masters own the horses but only hire the slaves. If the 
horse dies the owner loses, but if the child dies there is 
another one that necessity compels to take the place. But 
these masters are kind to their own families, kind to their 
horses and dogs, it must be the necessity for profit and the 
necessity for wages that makes all this seeming unkindness 
to the slaves." 

Justice awarded to the client with the largest bank 
account, and a system of slavery that makes it more profitable 
for the master to hire the slaves than to own them, are the 
twin apples that have grown from the limb of party govern- 
ment on our tree of State. What is the Washington hatchet 
that will lop off that branch ? 

The great majority of the people are of the laboring 
class, and from them and for them we hear the cry they do 
not have what they want, that they do not get their just 



3 o THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

reward, that justice is given to the few favored ones but is 
denied to the many, that laws are not made in the interests 
of the mass of the people, that the rich are getting richer and 
fewer, and that the poor are getting poorer and more num- 
erous. But if this is a government in which the majority of 
the people rule themselves, how can such things be? How 
can the majority be finding fault with what they do them- 
selves ? How can the people be complaining of the laws they 
make themselves ? If they get what they want they will not 
be complaining, and their complaint is proof that the govern- 
ment does not enable the people to have what they want and 
is therefore a failure. When the people rule they will not be 
complaining. 

Shall we who have all power ask in vain for what we 
want, if we are able to use the power? Shall we who produce 
all food be hungry if we ourselves make the laws for the 
distribution of that food? Shall the creators of all wealth 
be poor ? 

The people will not be crying out about the evils that 
have come upon them when they can have what they want. 
Their cry is the cry of failure of party government to enable 
them to express their wishes. 

Party government is a designing serpent with lies on its 
tongue and slime in its path. 

People Dissatisfied. 
Who are satisfied with our government? Those who 
are its grafters and those who do not know what is done. 
The intelligent people are all finding fault, and to them the 
government is not satisfactory. This is the evidence that 
indicts the government of failure. Business is successful, 
government is the most important business. Why should 
it not be run successfully ? We do not find the people finding 
fault with the methods of our large business concerns, for 
those concerns are managed the most successfully of any in 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 31 

the world. Why should not the same thing be said ot our 
government ? 

Why are there poor men, bad men, unfit men in our 
offices? There have been cases where men who could not 
read or write, were chosen on our boards of supervisors and 
boards of aldermen. Is not a government run by such men 
necessarily a failure? Is not a government which permits 
such men to be its managers, a failure ? 

Why do good men refuse to participate in politics? 
Why is there indifference to so great public concerns on the 
part of our best men? 

Why do we advise young men to go into any profession 
except public life? We say to an honest young man, "Be 
anything you wish but a politician. " Now, a politician ought 
to be the most respected of men. He ought to do the highest 
class of work for his fellow men, and under the successful 
government, he does it. A government that keeps its best 
men out of its service, must be a failure. 

Why are our taxes so high? Do we get what we pay 
for? The taxes of the National government average $7 to 
each person; New York State, $11 ; and the City of Roch- 
ester, $15. When a government gives us so little in return 
for what we give to it, is it not a failure ? 

Why do the small minority of the rich take advantage of 
the great majority of the poor? Why do the few enjoy the 
favoritism of the government when the government is in the 
hands of those from whom those favors are taken? When 
the mass of the people complain that they do not get their 
fair share of the products of their labor, is not their govern- 
ment a failure? 

Why is it that our officers are selected by one man, or by 
a few men working together as one man? Why is public 
office a private snap ? When public office becomes the per- 
sonal possession of the man who fills it, who uses it for his 



32 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

own advantage, and "works for his own pocket all the time/' 
is not that method of government a failure ? 

Legislators, Go Home! 

This morning the newspapers contain articles to the 
effect that members of the State Legislature of New York 
are "being deluged" with telegrams from boards of trade and 
business men, urging the Legislature to speedily adjourn and 
thus help to relieve the business depression! What a com- 
mentary on the failure of our government by parties ! The 
legislature is elected to make laws for the people to help them 
in time of trouble. We are in the midst of business depres- 
sion — a panic — and what does this legislature of wise men 
do? Nothing. What do we think they can do? Nothing. 
What do we want them to do ? Nothing. The business men 
distrust them and want them to adjourn, stop, get out of the 
way, so they can do nothing. They are a nuisance. If the 
government by parties were a success, it would act now, 
now we would want it to act. We feel in our bones that it is 
a failure, and the less we have of it the better. If our Legis- 
lature and Congress were to adjourn for four years, per- 
haps it would be a good thing. The country would have rest 
and peace, the people would be left to themselves to get along 
without government. It would seem that no government is 
better than that which the parties give us. Truly, that gov- 
ernment is best which governs least when it is run by parties. 

If the Central Railroad Company were in financial 
trouble, the stockholders would want a meeting of the board 
of directors to devise some means for the improvement of 
the company. They would not ask them to go home and let 
the affairs of the company alone so that matters would not 
get worse. They would not do this unless they thought the 
directors were totally incompetent, but the stockholders of 
the State want the legislators to do this. We want them to 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 33 

go home and stay there and leave the government alone. We 
think of them as boys playing with sticks of dynamite. They 
do not know what the trouble is with the business of the 
State, and they think it is not their business to know. They 
are picked out to look after the interests of the "interests, " 
and therefore the less they do the better it is for the people. 
These officers study their jobs, but not the business of the 
State. As long as they do the work of their masters they are 
kept in office, but when they show a tendency to learn the 
needs of the people of the State, they are sent back to private 
life. 

The State Capitol is used as a clearing house for specu- 
lators and grafters. They should be driven out and a sign 
should be put on the Capitol 'To let for some Honest Busi- 
ness," and the rent money should be divided among the peo- 
ple who cannot get work. 

Panics. 

The people of the United States possess business enter- 
prise, sagacity and skill. The seed time and harvest come 
regularly and the fruits of the soil are bountiful. But every 
little while we have a panic. What is the reason ? The men 
who ought to know, our Legislators and Congressmen, cer- 
tainly do not know, and we therefore want them to go home 
so they will not do any foolish mischief by passing laws 
whose effect they know not. They are too busy to study the 
condition of the country, their private affairs are all they can 
attend to. Besides their business is outside the interests of 
the people. When they have themselves and their bosses to 
look out for, how can they be expected to look after the inter- 
ests of the clamorous people? If you should see a quack 
doctor trying to cure a sick horse, you would say, "Go away, 
and let this horse get well. ,, So we say to our Legislators, 
"Go home and let our business conditions improve. " Instead 



34 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

of cutting out the cancer they are likely to carve the heart, 
so little do they know of the anatomy of the State. Nowhere 
in the world are there better evidences of business ability 
than in the United States. Why then is this failure called 
business depression? All business is attended to except one 
business, and that is the most important one. The business 
of looking after the business interests of the people is the 
one thing that is neglected. Private business enterprises 
clash with one another, there is industrial warfare on all 
sides. Business is sick of the fever of its own disorganiza- 
tion, and the politicians cannot regulate it, they do not try. 

Party Government Means Personal Government, Autocratic 

Government. 

Pure democracy on a large scale has seemed impossible. 
At least it has seemed impossible up to the present time. Of 
course the people of the State or Nation cannot all meet 
together, all at once and make their laws or choose their 
officers. I shall show here and elsewhere that pure democ- 
racy is possible and necessary, that the people can all meet on 
the same day throughout the whole United States, express 
their choice of principles and men just as well as if they 
could all be under one huge tent, where one could speak to 
all the rest ; and it is astonishing that our statesmen have not 
seen this. But for the present, we take the popular assump- 
tion that pure democracy is impossible and that representa- 
tive democracy is the only practicable form. Since the peo- 
ple cannot actually meet, they must have representatives to 
meet in their place. 

In a representative government, we say parties are nec- 
essary. Parties are necessary to pick out representatives. It 
is evident that if the people cannot meet and must have rep- 
resentatives to speak in their place because they cannot meet, 
they connot meet to pick out officers and must have some 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 35 

kind of representative to take their place in doing it. This 
representative is the political party. It has grown up to take 
the place of the people. Its leaders meet in place of the 
meeting of the people. It has a distinct reason for existence. 
It has grown in healthy soil and is a sturdy plant. The 
popular belief is that parties are as necessary as the machin- 
ery of government itself, that without the one, the other 
could not be ; and as our government is organized, this is 
true. Instead of choosing officers, we choose parties. 
Instead of the people making a selection, the party leaders 
make the selection. The theory of parties is that we elect 
parties to carry out principles for us. Men having common 
opinions naturally get together to express their opinions. 
They form a party which expresses their opinions, and one 
object of the party is to advocate and express such opinions. 

"Represent" is a peculiar word. There is also a word 
"misrepresent." Xow I believe it is common knowledge and 
common opinion that the parties do not represent the peo- 
ple. They actually take the place of the people and repre- 
sent nothing but themselves. To represent a person, we 
must do as he wishes us, to do as he would do if he were 
there. But when we set up our own judgment, then we do 
not represent him. Through parties principles are misrep- 
resented, policies are misrepresented, laws are misrepre- 
sented. The people are deceived and government by party 
representatives is government by misrepresentation. 

We have a government by parties and parties are dom- 
inated by what we call bosses. Governor Hughes said for 
years the people of New York State at the assembling of 
the Republican State Convention awaited anxiously for word 
to come from the Fifth Avenue Hotel of New York. Was 
this representative government? It was to be sure. The 
several hundred delegates at the convention represented Tom 
Piatt and the interests back of him and the interests he was 



36 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

backing. Those who thought these delegates were repre- 
senting the people have been informed and are now informed 
by the Governor of the State, who knows how the machinery 
is run, as to the true nature of affairs. 

When the Republican National Convention assembled in 
1908, whom did the delegates represent? While the people 
were waiting for the nomination to be made, whom were 
they waiting for? While they were wondering what they 
were to believe, whose mind was preparing the political 
dogmas for them to believe? Theodore Roosevelt. It is 
conceded by everybody that is at all acquainted with the facts, 
that the convention was a Roosevelt convention, that every 
act either had its direction from him or was approved by 
him. His hold on the National Machine was as complete as 
Piatt's hold on the State Machine. 

This country has had two capitols, one at Washington 
and one at Lincoln. Mr. Roosevelt was one boss and Mr. 
Bryan the other. When the Democratic National Conven- 
tion assembled in 1908, whom did the people wait for, whose 
will was to be expressed, who was to be represented? Mr. 
Bryan. Was anything done in that convention in opposition 
to his wishes? Could anything have been done in opposi- 
tion? Perhaps never before have two men held such great 
power over political parties as these two men, and never 
before has there been as clear an illustration of one-man 
power in party and in government. These two men stand 
out like two mountain peaks in a mountain range. 

When the party becomes the government, the boss of the 
party becomes the boss of the government. This is true if 
two and two make four. If Mr. Bryan could dominate the 
Democratic organization when he was a candidate for elec- 
tion, could he not have dominated much more completely if 
he had been elected. The more power a boss has, the more 
he is a boss. The more the people trust a man to represent 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 37 

them, the less he will represent them and the more he will 
exercise the power given him as his own power. Kings rep- 
resent the people. They have at some time been elected, 
but after the election they are themselves. 

There has been much criticism of President Roosevelt, 
even by his friends, that he carried out a personal govern- 
ment. Senators and Governors of his own party have 
expressed themselves against such conduct. It was the con- 
templation of such exercise of power that led Washington 
to condemn parties in his farewell address to the people. 
When a man is the leader of a party, and his party followers 
become the government, is it not natural, is it not necessary 
that we have a personal government, is he not expected to 
give us such a government, is he not false to his party if he 
does not give it to us? The leader tells the people what they 
believe, and now when the people make him their official 
leader should he not continue to tell them not only what to 
believe but what to do? He did not take orders from them 
when he was a candidate, much less should be take orders 
when he is placed above them on his official pedestal. 

Some Failures. 

In 1837 we had a great panic, in 1857 we had another 
panic, in 1860 we had the great civil war, in 1873 another 
panic, in 1893 still another and in 1907 the "last" panic came 
upon us. These panics have come during the administra- 
tion of each of the great parties. There is a reason for such 
upheavals in our business, and neither party has applied 
any remedy for the evil. The country wears off the panic 
as a sick man may wear off his disease, without medicine. 

Because some of the voters cannot read, party govern- 
ment need not be a failure, but when men who cannot read 
make our laws, can it be said our government is a suc- 
cess? 



38 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Every old soldier is a sign of the failure of party gov- 
ernment of 1860. Every lynching in the South is a sign of 
the failure of the reconstruction of the South in 1868. The 
special session of Congress to revise the tariff is an indict- 
ment for failure to do a plain duty. 

I do not say that our government is absolutely bad, 
but it is not as good as it should be. We are better off than 
the people of Europe financially. Why? We have cheap 
land and great opportunities to make money, great reward 
for labor, civil and religious liberty that is not the result of 
government by party. Justice is meted out by the common 
law that governs England. Party has given us practically 
nothing, it has developed no system of laws or policy, we 
have drifted. There have been opportunities for party graft 
and they have been seized. 

The best developed institutions in America are our pub- 
lic schools, and they have been exceptionally out of politics, 
and it is for that reason they are good. When we must keep 
our schools out of the control of parties to make them suc- 
cessful is it not proof that government by parties is a fail- 
ure? Every public activity that we can keep out of the 
clutch of party is a success, but wherever the hand of the 
party has control, there we find failure. Like a plague it 
spreads over the country poisoning everything with which 
it comes in contact. 

The people have built up industry and a great system of 
schools. They have been successful in spite of the rule of 
parties. Parties have fooled with the questions of slavery, 
tariff, and money, without any plan or policy, letting the 
country drift along from one panic to another. 

What has the constructive genius of the people done in 
politics ? Nothing. What has the constructive genius of the 
politicians done ? Given away the public land, granted fran- 
chises, spent much money for nothing, levied a system of 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 39 

tariff taxes to build up industries which sell goods to for- 
eigners more cheaply than to Americans. Where the parties 
have left the people alone there has been success. Where 
the evidence of party activity is strongest there are the clear- 
est evidences of failure. Party is the leprous giant roaming 
over the country seeking what he may devour. 

A Contrast. 

Lord Chatham, speaking of the American colonies, in 
1774, said: 

"They choose delegates, by their free suffrages : no 

bribery, no corruption, no influence there, my lords. Their 
representatives meet, with the sentiments and temper, and 
speak the sense of the continent. For genuine sagacity, for 
singular moderation, for solid wisdom, manly spirit, sublime 
sentiments, and simplicity of language, for everything respec- 
table, and honorable, the Congress of Philadelphia shine un- 
rivalled. This wise people speak out. They do not hold the 
language of slaves ; they tell you what they mean." That 
was when the people spoke through their representatives, 
when there were no parties, when the people could be heard 
as well as counted, when the people looked to the govern- 
ment as their chief guide up the hill of civilization. Instead 
of the government we have party, instead of patriotism we 
have partisanship, instead of the people expressing them- 
selves as a force in the government they are counted and 
branded like sheep by the politicians. Parties have become 
the mile posts that lead us down the hill of misgovernment 
on the toboggan of bribery, corruption and graft. Instead 
of meriting the praise of the great English statesman we 
deserve the condemnation of our grand juries. 

Corruption. 
The Chicago Grand Jury, December, 1908. reported 
as follows : 



40 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

"Fraudulent registration, leading to fraudulent voting, 
repeating by platoons of men who were voted first for one 
party and then for another party's candidates at the same 
precinct; voting names of absentees, non-residents, insane 
and dead men, accepting false affidavits on behalf of dis- 
qualified voters, known to the judges to be so; numerous 
and flagrant perjuries by party voters to enable them to 
cast illegal votes, taking votes from non-resident voters 
without affidavits in support of such votes; fraudulently 
writing names on the poll-books and putting ballots in the 
boxes to correspond; keeping upon the registers names of 
men who have removed from the respective precincts and 
voting them ; voting the same name more than once at the 
same precinct ; disfranchising voters by permitting their 
names to be voted by others ; marking ballots after the 
boxes were opened ; handing voters ballots already marked 
for certain candidates ; marking ballots for voters against 
their wishes, and putting such ballots into the ballot-box; 
intimidating voters and compelling them to vote for their 
candidates contrary to their wishes ; strangers and police 
officers being permitted to handle the ballots after the boxes 
were opened so as to permit of fraudulent marking of bal- 
lots — all these were proved before us, and are by no means 
all of the devices which we have reason to believe were 
resorted to in violation of every provision of the election 
laws intended for the security of the voter, the sancity of the 
ballot and the accuracy of the result, and to defeat the will 
of the people as expressed by the lawful votes cast at said 
election. " 

Is there any band of robbers who would conduct their 
official proceedings on a par with that? 

The Proof. 
You may say that decent people do not take part in the 
government. Yes, and that is the chief argument to prove 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 41 

that our government by parties is a failure. The device of 
party that can keep the people from taking part in their 
most important business, that can destroy their interest in 
their most important institution, that can dissolve into a 
morass the only rock on which their security can rest, is a 
successful scheme for the "plunderbund," but a failure in 
establishing the government described by Lincoln. 

Will those who do not agree that government by parties 
is a failure, tell us in what it is a success, or point out how 
party government produces any better or different results 
than any despotism of the old world ? 

If the complaints in the Declaration of Independence 
against the English King were recited against our parties, 
the indictment would be altogether too mild. We return 
again to the statement that parties stand indicted by the 
common sense of he American people as guilty of all crimes 
in the political calendar. On what points have they not 
failed? Parties must be destroyed. 

Where They Succeed. 

But parties are successful ! So are a great many rob- 
bers ! To say that a thief succeeds is not to say that a life of 
thieving is a success. We admit that parties are a magnifi- 
cent success for the managers of the machines. No failure 
there! Yes, parties have been a success for themselves. 
They have built up organizations within the State that set 
the government at defiance. They have succeeded in taking 
the reins from the hands of the people. Yea, they have dis- 
missed the cart and horse of the Constitution and are riding 
for their health in an automobile of their own construction. 

"Necessity is the mother of invention." Who is the 
master genius that fashioned the "Auto" of party rule? 
Absence of the good man of the house invites the thief. The 
temple of government was constructed for the people. They 



42 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

were told to enter and enjoy, but they did not get the key 
that unlocks the door to the parliamentary assembly room 
of the people. The people have been locked out of their 
own house. Party thieves have broken in and made them- 
selves master of the house. They shall be cast out. Parties 
must be destroyed. 

The Oasis, 

I point to the bloom of our public school system as one 
plant that has not been blighetd by the poisonous miasma 
of party corruption. If party government were a success, 
we would say let parties control our schools, but we instinc- 
tively shrink from it. Our good sense tells us to shun party 
government. "Keep the schools out of politics'' is the cry 
that goes up from every city of America, and it is one un- 
ceasing cry against the incompetency and failure of party 
government. We say keep our schools out of politics 
because we want the laws that govern our schools made by 
men who at least can read. Let the schools be governed by 
commissioners, by selectmen, by any one, by anything, 
except by parties. Churches have advanced free of the 
State. Schools have flourished free from parties. Civil 
liberty has been protected by the constitution and the com- 
mon law, which has nothing to do with the party. Party 
has gotten us into wars, given away our lands and natural 
resources, and collected taxes from us, but on account of 
our unbounded resources and opportunities, we have been 
successful in making money in spite of parties. 

District School Government. 

The schools of New York are among the best in the 
world, although the system is not old, but the system of 
school government as practised in the country districts of 
the State is the most important institution of the world 
to-day. It is simply pure democratic government. Here 



PARTY GOVERNMENT IS A FAILURE 43 

is the "people assembled." Here is the "District," here is 
the little State. Here we see again the meetings of Anglo- 
Saxons under their sacred tree, here we listen to the voice 
of the people. 

One of these meetings is a solemn and impressive scene 
to the student of politics. I well remember, when a lad, 
going with my father to school meetings in my home dis- 
trict. It was a small district, the school house was small, but 
the meetings were important to the people, and interesting 
to me. The voters assembled and were called to order by 
the clerk of the district. A chairman and secretary were 
chosen and then the people proceeded to elect the school 
officers for the year. Sometimes an informal ballot would 
be taken for the trustee, by which the men who were con- 
sidered candidates for the office would be made known to all 
the voters, and then from the highest on the list, the trustee 
would be chosen by one or more extra ballots. Here was a 
parliamentary body, acting according to the same rules as 
the English Parliament and the Congress of the United 
States. Here was the true parliamentary assembly of the 
people of the district, the "district assembled". 

Each voter formed a part of the "District", each dis- 
trict formed a part of the "State" ; the individual is the unit 
of society, the little district is the unit of governmental ac- 
tivity in the State. There are about twelve thousand such 
districts in the State. In twelve thousand little parliamen- 
tary assemblies the people of the State express themselves, 
govern themselves and do it without parties. Here then is 
the nuclues about which we shall build up the government of 
the State and the Nation, without parties. The territory of 
all of the districts makes up the territory of the State, the 
will of all of the districts ascertained, becomes the will of the 
State. We are the State, and we can act through our units 
of representation, the little districts that form the units of 



44 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

government. Twelve thousand little states welded into one, 
and no parties ! 

Here is the taproot of the American Republic. 

Here is the place where parties shall be destroyed. The 
little red school house shall outlast the pyramids, and when 
forty centuries look down upon it, it will still be the chief 
stone of the corner. 




THEORY OF GOVERNMENT BY PARTIES 45 

CHAPTER VI. 

THEORY OF GOVERNMENT BY PARTIES. 
Principle of Representation. 

The theory on which government by parties is based is 
the principle of representation. 

Shall the people rule? Yes. Democracy is an estab- 
lished fact. 

There are instances of pure democracies, but they were 
all in a small territory. If only a small number of people are 
to be governed, a pure democracy is the only form of govern- 
ment that is proper, and that can be easily adjusted. But 
how can ninety million people meet as a pure democracy? 
Of course it is out of the question. The people of a city can- 
not meet in this way. 

But when people cannot do certain things themselves, 
they may be able to send messengers or agents. This neces- 
sity gives rise to the principle of representation. Perhaps 
the first use of this principle was in the meeting of the Hun- 
dred in Europe. It was used in the county meetings in Eng- 
land and in the Colonies in America. 

Long before the discovery of America, when England 
itself was inhabited by savages and the so-called civilized 
world was a little strip of territory surrounding the Mediter- 
ranean sea, the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxon race were liv- 
ing in the Northwestern part of Europe. They had local 
self-government in a higher form than had ever before ex- 
isted. They lived in "tuns" or towns. 

"Mote" is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning meeting. A 
"tungemote" was a town meeting in these ancient villages. 
Each spring the men of the town met under their sacred tree 
to make laws for the government of the town. 

They thought that each man had the right to govern 
himself and his household and the right to participate in the 



46 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

government of the tun, and that any government over the 
people derived its powers from the consent of the people 
governed. 

A number of tuns formed a hundred. At the meeting, 
or "tungemote", a headman and four or more men were 
chosen to go to the "hundred-mote", the meeting of the hun- 
dred. This meeting or council decided disputes between tuns 
and appeals from the motes of the different tuns. The head- 
man or "reeve" of each tun and those who went with him to 
the hundred-mote, represented their tun in this meeting. 
Here we see the working of the principle of representative 
government. The tun was a pure democracy, a government 
in which the people made their laws direct. A hundred was 
a republic, a government in which the people made their laws 
indirectly — by electing representatives to speak in their place. 

The people of a large section of the country formed a 
nation — a natural nation of people speaking the same lan- 
guage and having similar ideals and customs. Peace and 
war were about the only questions that affected the nation. 
When such questions arose, the hundred-motes of the differ- 
ent hundreds that acted together and thus formed a nation, 
sent representatives of the hundreds to a national council, or 
mote, to choose a leader for the war. This leader we may 
consider our president ; the national mote, our congress ; the 
hundred-motes, our state legislatures ; and the tuns, our 
towns and cities ; and we have the seed, the embryo of the 
American Republic. 

When the colonists came to New England they came 
together as towns. They built a school house and church, a 
block house for defense, cleared the land around their log 
houses for cultivation, and the little towns looked very much 
like the Anglo-Saxon tuns of 2,000 years ago. As they grew 
in size, several of them united, forming little colonies. The 
government of each colony was a representative government. 



THEORY OF GOVERNMENT BY PARTIES 47 

The plan of electing representatives to speak in place of the 
people of the towns, was not only more convenient, but it 
made it possible for the most competent men to take part in 
the government. So we see the principle of representation is 
based not only on convenience of meeting, but also on the 
idea of having only qualified men to take part in the govern- 
ment. Beyond the town, government was necessarily repre- 
sentative. 

When the colonists became free and established our 
present government, they knew about local self-government 
and colonial representative government. In the town meet- 
ing they made laws for their town, laws that immediately 
affected themselves. The larger questions of government, 
questions that affected the colony and did not particularly 
concern the people of any town, were decided by the repre- 
sentatives of the people in colonial assembly. 

The question of the necessity of representatives needs 
but to be stated to be approved. 

The American colonists declared that, "Taxation with- 
out representation is tyranny." The people were willing to 
be taxed, but they wanted to impose taxes through their own 
representatives. 

Theory of the Party. 

"Birds of a feather flock together." "Like attracts like." 
"We know a man by the company he keeps." These are all 
true and trite sayings. We find a great many societies and 
organizations throughout the country, and each has an ob- 
ject, there is a reason for each. The existence of a society 
requires a number of people having common opinions, de- 
sires, beliefs, an object in acting together, and an opportunity 
of acting together. 

Girls admire flowers. Their common opinion is that 
flowers are nice and desirable. There are some flowers 



48 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

growing in a wood near by, and of course the girls want 
these flowers. A nice idea comes to them, and they go to get 
the flowers. This illustrates the working of a society, of a 
political party. The opinion and the desire and the oppor- 
tunity of the girls found expression in the May Flower 
Party. How did it take place, how was it organized ? The 
opinion and desire was in each mind. The opportunity be- 
came known, and a suggestion was all that was necessary to 
get the girls to act. But someone must make the suggestion, 
someone must give the movement a start. The stone must be 
set rolling, there must be a leader. We may consider the 
things necessary to an organization as a common desire and 
a common opportunity. 

How is a temperance party started? 

How is a free education movement started? 

How is a women's suffrage party or movement started ? 

How is a movement to repair the village sidewalk 
started ? 

How is an anti-immigration movement started? 

A party is an organization of people with similar 
opinions, desires, etc. Parties will spring up when a ques- 
tion comes up that is vital and prominent enough to organize 
them, but if they are already organized into some party on 
some principle, it will be impossible to organize them on new 
lines. So that new principles even more important than the 
old ones may not have an opportunity to be expressed and 
represented by a party. Parties are organized because people 
agree on some one thing, but do not agree with other parties 
on some other thing. Because of this disagreement only 
one great principle can be expressed by one party at a time. 
The groundwork of a party is the common opinion, desire 
or ambition. The organizing of the party requires the oppor- 
tunity to organize, a motive for organizing and an organizer 
to bring about the organization. 



THEORY OF GOVERNMENT BY PARTIES 49 

Officers and Parties. 

Our officers make laws for us. We elect the officers for 
that purpose. If we want temperance laws, we must get men 
to pass them and execute them, we must get temperance men 
to do it, we must elect men to office, we must, therefore, have 
a temperance party and elect its candidates to office. We 
must find men who agree with us in principles, we must form 
a party, nominate candidates and get them elected. Then 
these candidates, who will become our officers, will pass and 
carry out the laws they want, which will be the laws we want. 
We can rule by electing men of like opinions as ourselves. 
All men who want temperance will join the temperance 
party, all the men who want protection will join the republi- 
can party, the men who want free trade will join the demo- 
cratic party. If a man wants temperance, free trade, and the 
gold standard — Ah, such a man is thinking too much, he can- 
not belong to any party, we will consider his case in another 
chapter, but the man who has only one idea can find a party 
with that idea, or he can make a new party or give up his 
idea. 

If you want some principle enacted into law, vote for 
the party that is advocating that principle. If there is no 
such party, pray for your principle. If you are a millionaire 
or own a newspaper start a party. 

Principles Not Men. 

It is the proud boast of many voters that they vote for 
the best man without regard to party, which means without 
regard to his political principles. They want to know his 
moral principle, his history, his conduct in public life, his at- 
titude with respect to the welfare of the people. They want 
to know that he is not in any ring or clique, but that whatever 
he thinks is for the best interest of the people, he will do. 
They say men first and principles afterward. 



50 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

There is another class of voters who take just as much 
pride in saying that they vote for principles and not for the 
man. They say the men are morally bound to carry out the 
principles of their party. They consider first the principle 
of the party to which they belong. When they vote for the 
candidate, they do not consider that they are voting for the 
man so much as for the principles he represents. The indi- 
viduality of the man counts for nothing, the principles of the 
party count for everything. If the party is good the man 
cannot be wrong, if the party is bad the candidate cannot be 
good. "The king can do no wrong." My party cannot be 
wrong, and if the party cannot be wrong then the candidate 
who represents it is equally infallible. Some men would vote 
for anybody if put on the party ticket. To a Democrat a bad 
Democrat, no matter how bad, is better than a good Republi- 
can, no matter how good. 

This is the extreme view of putting principles above 
men, but it is the correct view under our system of party 
government. 

Mr. Chanler, candidate for governor, said : "Ours is a 
government of party, rather than of men. Elections are 
determined upon principles, rather than personalities. " The 
party is the instrument by which the people express them- 
selves. It is a poor tool, but it is all we have. The candi- 
dates are but the clerks of the parties, they are bound to exe- 
cute the party principle, and the principles of the party are 
the all-important things. If we have bad men within a party, 
it is proper to reduce them to the ranks and not let them be 
leaders. It is our duty to choose good men to lead our par- 
ties, but if bad men do secure control of our party, we must 
not desert the party for it expresses our principles. We must 
be as loyal to our party organization as to our homes, and we 
must not vote against our party because it is in control of dis- 
honest men any more than we would desert our home because 



THEORY OF GOVERNMENT BY PARTIES 51 

the house lacks some modern improvements. Our party is 
the best thing we have, we want to have the best men we can 
as our candidates, but no matter how bad they are, they are 
our candidates. 

How the Organization Acts. 
The party is made up of the organization and the voters. 
The organization consists of committees — national, state, 
county, city, town and ward. These committees provide the 
means by which the members of the party act. Nominations 
must be made and platforms must be written at conventions 
which represent the people. Then the "campaign of educa- 
tion" must be carried on. The dates for holding the various 
conventions are decided upon. The town or ward committee 
announces the date of the primary or caucus and selects a 
place for holding the primary, selects candidates for dele- 
gates and for new committees, has the names printed on bal- 
lots, chooses inspectors of election who attend the primaries, 
and then the members of the party come along and vote for 
the candidates the committee has picked out for delegates and 
new committeemen. These delegates and committeemen are 
the party organization, from now on everything is in their 
hands. The delegates hold a county or district convention 
and choose some of their number as delegates to state con- 
ventions, etc. After the members of the party give their 
consent to be governed at the primary, the rest is all clock 
work. The various delegates get together and do what the 
people want done. The ward or town committee pick out the 
men the people of each district want, that is what the com- 
mittee is for. These men picked out by the committee are so 
good that the members are not even given a chance to vote 
for any other candidates for delegates. The committeemen 
are very smart men, they know what the members of the 
party want without asking them. The committee know 
whom the people want for certain officers and they know 



52 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

what principles they want in the platform, and if the people 
do not know, why it is the duty of the committee to inform 
them. 

The delegates and committees represent the members 
of the party, and what the delegates and committees do is 
just the same as if the people were doing it themselves. It is 
impossible for all the members of the party to get together 
and so they must have representatives. The committeemen 
and delegates are mostly public officers or those who want 
to be public officers, lawyers, and saloon-keepers — men who 
have plenty of leisure time to think of what the people want, 
men who have no interests different from those of the mass 
of the people — in fact they are the people. The saloons are 
always open for the people to come and tell what they want, 
the lawyers are always ready to give advice, and the 
officers are working day and night for the interests of the 
people, and those who want to be officers are working days, 
nights and Sundays for the people, so as to be in good prac- 
tice when they get to be officers. So the members of the 
party have nothing to worry about, they have men to repre- 
sent them, and when these men have nominated the candi- 
dates for office the members congratulate themselves on the 
wise choice they have made (through representatives), and 
are glad they were not deceived by their delegates the same 
as the members of the other party were. The members read 
the platform to see what they believe. It is best to know 
what one believes, although, of course, it makes no differ- 
ence, for the officers chosen will know what the members 
want done and do it for them, yet, as the members have taken 
the trouble to express their belief (through the committee) 
they ought really to know what they have said. Now, all 
the members have to do is to go out on election day to vote, 
and thus beat the other party — and save the country. 

Such is the theory of party government. Of course, we 
must do it this way because the President, Governor, and all 
the rest of the wise people say it is necessary. 



PRACTICE IN GOVERNMENT BY PARTY 53 

CHAPTER VII. 
PRACTICE IN GOVERNMENT BY PARTY. 

A Young Man Enlightened. 
A young man had gone to college and had learned much 
about science, language, literature and history, but not much 
about our government. His attention was caught by the 
sentence. "This is a government of the people, by the 
people and for the people. " He felt that he was one of them 
and was anxious to do his part of the work. His mind had 
been trained to study and he thought he would be able to 
take an intelligent part and be of some use. 

He went to the office of the County Clerk and told what 
he wanted to do. 

The clerk smiled and said : 

"Well, you cannot do anything just now, but when elec- 
tion time comes around you can vote, and that is all the part 
you can take in the government." 

"Oh, what is an election and what do I do when I 
vote ?" 

"Why, the Republican party nominates some men for 
offices and the Democratic party nominates some men for 
the same offices, and you can say by voting which of the 
two groups of men you want to govern you." 

"Some one said this is a government of the people, by the 
people, and for the people. ,, 

"Well, he was shot." 

"But, don't the people govern themselves?" 
"Oh, to be sure, my boy. You and the rest of the people 
say which of these two sets of men, Democrats or Republi- 
cans, you want to represent you, and they run the govern- 
ment for you, and that is the same as if you were doing it 
yourself. " 



54 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

"Is that the way I take part? That is not the way we 
used to play ball. But can't I say I want anybody else ex- 
cept one of those two sets of men those two parties you 
speak of have chosen ?" 

"Oh yes, the Prohibitionists and Socialists and some 
others also name candidates, but none of these are ever 
elected and you would be throwing away your vote if you 
vote for them. ,, 

'But if one or the other of these sets of men are to be 
chosen, and if they are already chosen by the party, is not 
my vote thrown away anyway? What is the difference?" 

"Well, I see you don't understand politics." 

"When do I go to these 'parties' ?" 

"You don't go to a 'party', or meeting such as you are 
thinking about. You don't go to the party, you belong to 
the party." 

"Oh, what party do I belong to ?" 

"Why, to the same party your father does, of course. 
Ask him." 

"What party do you belong to, Father?" 

"I am a Democrat." 

"Do I belong to that party too ?" 

"Oh yes, my son, and I should be very much ashamed 
if you should belong to any other party." 

"Well I am sure, Father, I never shall." 

"That is right, my boy, always be a true patriot." 

"Who else belongs to this party, Father?" 

"Oh, all the good, honest people. The rascals and fools 
belong to the black Republican party." 

"It must be awful to be a Republican. What can I do 
in this party ? Do the parties have any meeting ? How are 
these men the County Clerk calls candidates, picked out?" 

"Well, I am not a politician. You go and ask my friend, 
Mr. B. He is a lawyer and will tell you all about it." 



PRACTICE IN GOVERNMENT BY PARTY 55 

"Good morning, Mr. B. Father says you will tell me 
how the candidates are nominated, and how I can take part 
in governing the country." 

"Well, it's like this. The people govern, but they must 
have two parties to do it for them. Of course, they could 
not do it without parties. Xow, you want to take part. Well, 
your father has influence with me. How would you like 
to be alderman? That's a nice job." 

"Oh, that would be fine if I only could be one." 

"I will put your name down. The committee will nomi- 
nate you. Of course, you are expected to do, when elected, 
just as I and the committee want you to do." 

"Oh yes, you are so kind to put my name down for the 
committee that I shall feel anything I can do to repay you 
will be done willingly. My father told me always to be a 
patriot. But what office do you hold?" 

"Oh (with a laugh), I am the boss." 

"What does the boss do?" 

"Oh, he keeps the committee posted, finds out who has 
the influence and what young men can be depended upon 
to do as the committee want them to do when they are 
elected." 

"Who elects the committee and the boss?" 

"Why, the committee is the committee. They pick their 
own members out. There is nobody back of them but me." 

"How did you come to be boss?" 

"I was on the committee and I have influence." 

"I think I see. You have influence and you became 
boss. My father has influence and I am put on the list for 
alderman. Then I will have influence and can get something 
for my friends. Is that the way it goes?" 

"Yes, you see through the game all right. I think you 
will be a good boss some day yourself." 



56 THK WASHINGTON PARTY 

"But, Mr. B, why don't you tell the people that this is 
a government of influence, by committees and bosses, for the 
people who have friends in office ?" 

"Ah, my boy, that is the game. The game is worth play- 
ing, and we must play it according to the rules of the game, 
and the first rule is to win, and you cannot win without in- 
fluence and the boys." 

Some Authorities Quoted. 

President Roosevelt said to Mr. Harriman, the great 
Railroad King : "Now, my dear sir, you and I are practical 
men . . . before I write my message I shall get you to 
come down to discuss certain government matters not con- 
nected with the campaign." 

And the "practical" Mr. Harriman said: 

"Whenever I want legislation from the legislature I can 
buy it; I can buy congress, and, if necessary, can buy the 
courts." 

Governor Hughes said: 

"The easiest way for special interests to secure favors 
and to get the best of the laws is through a treaty with a 
party machine ; that is, by dealing with the one man or with 
the few men who in any given community have secured 
such control." 

Mr. Woodruff, chairman of the Republican State Com- 
mittee, said: 

"Under the present scheme I can adjust and arbitrate 
matters and arbitrate differences without a formal or public 
fight." 

The Growth of Bosses. 

How does it come that we have bosses? We have 
bosses for the same reason that we have kings, sickness and 
trusts. They are necessary for carrying on certain activities 
or they are the result of conditions and forces at work. 



PRACTICE IN GOVERNMENT BY PARTY 57 

Economic conditions produce trusts, make trusts necessary. 
If all the men in trusts had never been born, the trusts would 
be in existence, other men would be in control of them. The 
institutions are greater than the men. The opportunity for 
forming a trust will develop a trust and a trust magnate. 
The opportunity for a king will bring a king. When sani- 
tary conditions are proper for fever someone will be sick. 
Wherever there is food, there is some food eater to consume 
it. 

Why is J. D. Rockefeller? There is oil in the ground. 
It becomes useful, people want it. Mr. Rockefeller sees that 
there is money in it. He gets hold of the lands, he improves 
the production of oil and builds up the trade. It is to his 
advantage to destroy competition and he does so. The op- 
portunity is there, and he seizes the opportunity, therefore 
he is. Why was boss Piatt? Why was Croker? Why is 
Nicholas II? The Czar is an institution, the child is born. 
The monarch is a part of the machine of empire. The mil- 
lionaire is a part of the machine of production, just like the 
railroad, telegraph or engine. When there are great quan- 
tities of material to be transferred from place to place, there 
will be some means of shipping. Railroads are not built till 
they are necessary. As long as the people have wants to be 
supplied, and the means of supplying the wants can be con- 
trolled by a few men, we shall have trusts. We do not find 
the whale in the tub but in the great sea. Where the oppor- 
tunity is great, the achievement will be great. The grapes 
grow on the grape vines, and where the flowers bloom, we 
shall have bouquets. 

Why is Piatt? "Why does the Rochester football team 

have Mr. for a leader ?" is a little different than "Why 

does the Rochester football team have a leader?" It must 
have a leader. It does not need to have a particular man for 
a leader. The Republican party does not need to have Tom 



58 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Piatt, but it must have a boss. Piatt is simply a type, and 
when we ask why is Piatt, we ask why has the party a boss. 
The boss is an office. Piatt fills that office. How is he the 
boss or how did he grow to be the boss ? What is lacking in 
the Republican party that he grows up to fill the place? 
Where is the defect? Why is the Republican or Democratic 
party? What is the void in our government that these par- 
ties fill? Where and what is the defect? 

Why are there third parties ? How many will there be ? 
What will be the result of these parties? Why will there 
always be two parties as is commonly stated? 

Why is Aldridge, and why is there not a Democratic 
boss of the same power and influence in Rochester ? Why is 
there a boss in every city, and why is the great boss always 
of the most powerful party in that city? On what does the 
boss feed that he grows so great. Ah, this is the point, it is 
upon what he feeds that he makes himself great. 

Favoritism. 

It does not matter so much who our officers are as how 
they are chosen. The same man chosen by different means 
under different circumstances will act like a different man. 
The source of his selection is like a light turned on an object. 
If the light is white the object appears white, if the light is 
yellow, the whole form is yellow. When a man is nominated 
to public office he is given a pair of glasses to wear by the 
power that nominates him, and they are colored to suit the 
taste of the man who gives the nomination. 

Governor Hughes says : "But many office holders know 
there is no other court than that of the political leader, and 
upon the smile or frown of the leader they know their polit- 
ical life depends/' 

Senator Depew said that for many years the people of 
the State waited eagerly for the Republican State Conven- 
tion when in session to name its candidate for governor 



PRACTICE IN GOVERNMENT BY PARTY 59 

and other officers, but that the delegates to the convention 
waited for the voice from the "Amen Corner", the Fifth 
Avenue Hotel in New York, the voice of Tom Piatt, to tell 
them whom to nominate. This was telling tales out of 
school, but it gives us an insight into the methods of the 
party. Now, the governor or the officer who is created by 
the voice from the "Amen Corner", will naturally hear noises 
from that same corner after he becomes a public officer and 
wants to be re-elected or sent to some higher office. Every 
officer will honor his maker whether it be the people, the 
convention, the committee, or the voice from the Amen 
Corner ; and as Governor Hughes says there are other nooks 
and corners besides that of the Fifth Avenue Hotel, from 
which come party raps and noises. No matter how good 
a private citizen a man may be, when he comes to be a public 
officer, he cannot serve both the boss and the people ; he must 
love one and despise the other. 

This is the secret of our bad government. The men 
who have been our officers have usually been able enough 
and respectable enough to begin with, but their association 
with the vultures that feed on the public, the leeches that 
suck their blood, and the sirens that lead them to their liquid 
graves, have defiled those entrusted with power and have 
bound them into a "league with death and a covenant with 
hell." The evils that our officers give us or permit us to 
suffer and endure are hatched from the eggs of the party ser- 
pent. It has bruised our heels, but hardly have we touched 
its head. Shall it be destroyed, or shall we say : "Come into 
the garden, dear little serpent, and beguile our servants into 
the paths as crooked as the folds of thine own body, lay thine 
eggs under the altar of government, and the fervent heat of 
the people's devotion shall hatch out the fatal brood, and we 
shall make thy image of brass and carry it before our eyes as 
we go forth to thy worship." 



60 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Mr. Bryan said one way he proposes to let the people 
rule more than they do is to let them elect United States 
Senators by direct vote. The members of the United States 
Senate are able men, and the people could not pick out men 
better qualified to act for them, but the qualifications that 
make them good servants of the people make them good 
servants of the trusts. Here is the travesty of representative 
government. Here is the "Millionaire's Club", the highest 
deliberative legislative body in the world, the Senate of the 
great American Republic, acting for the "interests" that hold 
ninety million people in a grasp more cruel and more binding 
than the slaves' shackles. Yes, it is the Millionaires' Club 
with which the people are driven to their task of supporting 
by the sweat of their brows the greatest system of monopolies 
that ever crushed down or had the power to crush down the 
pillars of the State, and such a State — built up out of the 
courage of American manhood and the devotion of Amer- 
ican womanhood. 

Who elects this august body of legislators ? The party 
bosses in their respective States suggest the name of the 
candidates, and the State legislators chosen by the "direct" 
vote of the people, approve. Whether the voice from the 
"amen corner", the word of the boss, the deliberation of the 
convention or the meditation of the committee suggest the 
name of the candidate, the people must approve. 

Friendship and favoritism are guides to the men in 
public office just as they are guides to the men in private 
business. The man in office has in his power many favors to 
bestow. On whom shall he bestow them ? His friends. He 
has many opportunities to use the power of his office for the 
benefit of an individual or the people. Which will he choose ? 
It is human nature to favor those who favor us ; to favor, 
not those who have favored us but those who can favor us 
or whom we hope will favor us. To those who put us in 



PRACTICE IN GOVERNMENT BY PARTY 61 

office and who can keep us there, advance us or retire us to 
private life, we look for advice. To them we turn with our 
gifts and grants of public favor. Public office is a party trust 
to be used to distribute the good things to the directors of 
the trusts. The law cannot change human nature, and as 
long as election laws bring about the conditions that make 
public officers intimates of the wielders of influence, the men 
with the money, so long shall we have a government of favor- 
itism, by those who are chosen as a favor, for those who 
have favors yet to give. 

What Is the Boss? 

The word "boss" is used so much that it is well to 
clearly define its meaning. The boss is an office, not an 
officer. The question is not "who is the boss," but "what is 
the boss?" Bosses may come and bosses may go, but boss- 
ing goes on forever. The boss's name may be Piatt, Croker, 
Woodruff, Murphy or many other names that may be men- 
tioned. There are bosses in towns, wards, counties, cities 
and states. There are bosses in both parties and bosses out- 
side of parties. It does not matter that we turn a boss out of 
office now and then, we still have the office of boss to be filled 
by some one. 

The boss is an institution, it is a constitution within our 
written constitution of government. It is a law within our 
election laws, it is the supervising office of all our public 
offices. 

Where is this office located. It is in the White House, 
in the committee rooms of both houses of Congress, in the 
congressional lobbies, in the halls of our state legislatures 
and in their lobbies, in every city hall and county court house, 
in every town office, in the saloon, in the "street", in the office 
of every corporation lawyer, wherever two or three are 
gathered together in the name of graft to talk over the dis- 
tribution of favors, there is the office of boss and there is the 



62 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

boss in office. When a railroad King goes to the White 
House to talk over the President's message to Congress, the 
boss looks over their shoulders as they hold their secret con- 
ference. When the ward heeler picks out the delegates or 
committeemen for his party in the back room of the saloon, 
the boss whispers into his ear. When an insurance company 
gives one hundred thousand dollars to the campaign fund of 
a party, the president of the company and the treasurer of 
the party clasp hands in the presence of the boss. The boss 
is not seen but felt. It takes no commands but gives orders. 
It is both feared and obeyed. 

The boss is favoritism. It is influence, it is pull, it is the 
God of the politicians, it is the great politician. Yea, it is the 
State. "I am the State" said the King of France. "We, the 
people of the United States," said the framers of the Consti- 
tution. Yes, they were the State, they built the temple of 
government, and then they locked the door and threw away 
the key. 

A poor man who lived in a hovel, by much hard work 
built him a beautiful house, and when it was done he looked 
it over, locked the door, threw away the key, and went back 
to live in his hovel. Some tramps came along, picked the 
lock of the door, entered and became boss of the house. 

In the temple of government there is one chamber where 
the people were to rule. The people were to choose officers 
and to express their will, and that chamber was to be the 
scene of their activities. It was to be fitted up as a parlia- 
mentary assembly room for the people, and the key, an elec- 
tion law that would open the door to the people, was to be 
made for them. But it was not done. The party tramps 
broke into the hall and fitted it up with the paraphernalia of 
"party organization". At one end of the hall they have 
raised a dais, on which they have made a golden image of 
the "boss", the personification of what was meant to be the 



PRACTICE IN GOVERNMENT BY PARTY 63 

people ruling, the people entrusted with power, democracy 
triumphant. But how different. There are rows of benches 
at which the faithful kneel with bowed head before the 
brazen image, which has in its outstretched arm a lighted 
torch shielding "party spirit" over the room, where should sit 
enthroned the Goddess of Liberty. Before the altar is a 
"ballot box". On one side is marked "vote here", and on the 
other side is the word "plums". Around the sides of the hall 
is the large gallery where the people may witness the sacri- 
fice and ceremonies. They are permitted to cast certain bits 
of approved paper into the ballot box as they pass out, and 
then the attendants to the "boss" open the box on the other 
side and take out the plums. 

This is the Boss. Here sits the God of party passion, 
party devotion, and party bigotry enthroned on the very 
shrine of liberty. Here is the power of the "state". Here 
public conscience is stifled with the incense of "party neces- 
sity". Here favoritism receives its reward from the horn of 
plenty and confidence betrayed feeds fat its grudge. 

What is the boss ? It is the spirit of favoritism that 
pours the golden oil into the ever dry boxes of the party ma- 
chine. It is the pasture of favoritism in which the elephant 
and donkey feed on what has made them great. It is the 
orchard of favoritism where unto the tree of popular rule 
are grafted the branches of individual opportunity and per- 
sonal government. 

What is the boss ? It is the opportunity for private gain 
and public plunder. The police commissioner of New York 
City says he was offered six hundred thousand dollars not 
to enforce the law against certain interests. Such conditions 
as these which exist in New York, and in other large cities, 
have been and are the bosses of many public officers. Where 
did Croker and other men w T ho have regulated the power of 
the boss, get their money? Perhaps they raise plums. Per- 



64 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

haps! When a city council has an opportunity to grant a 
street railroad franchise worth millions of dollars to a private 
corporation, the power to make the "deal" between the coun- 
cil and the corporation, is the boss, and the man who regu- 
lates this power, the man who engineers the deal, the man 
who sees that everything goes through all right, he is the 
boss. 

What is the boss? There is a public office to be filled. 
The people are to vote for a candidate suggested to them. 
The power to suggest that candidate is the boss. The man 
who exercises this power of suggestion is the boss. 

What is the boss? The Constitution says the people 
shall choose certain officers, but makes no provision for their 
doing it. The laws have made no provisions for their doing 
it. The people must vote for these officers, but they have no 
means of deciding on whom they shall vote for. The power 
to decide this is the boss. The man who exercises this power 
is the boss. 

Between the constitutional right of the people to elect 
their officers and the actual opportunity to elect them is a 
vacuum, the empty council chamber, the impotency of the 
people. The Constitution is one cell of the battery of pop- 
ular government and the people are the other cell, but they 
have not been connected. They have not been organized for 
activity. They have not been wired together. The wire that 
brings the two together, that connects the Constitution with 
the people, that enables the power of government to pass 
from the people to the officers under the Constitution, is the 
party wire. Through this wire the current of the people's 
authority must flow. This wire is the nomination or sugges- 
tion of candidates for office. This is what was omitted from 
our laws. The people were not organized to express them- 
selves, but organizations have sprung up which pretend to 
represent the people and to express their wants. These are 



PRACTICE IN GOVERNMENT BY PARTY 65 

the party organizations. These are the bosses of the people. 
The man who can regulate the current through the party 
wire is the party boss and the boss of the people. 

There are several men who want to be candidates for a 
certain office and certain men who would be suitable candi- 
dates. One must be picked out. How shall it be done? 
There must be a clearing house where the right values are 
given to each candidate and the one with the highest public 
value selected. This clearing house should be the parlia- 
mentary assemblies of the people, but that not having been 
provided for, the clearing house is the office of the boss. He 
sifts them out, he runs them through the hopper of the 
party machine. He separates the wheat from the chaff and 
gives the people the chaff. Yes, he is the boss. 

Who is the boss ? He has different names and different 
characters, different abilities and different opportunities. 
There is the boss who can approach the keeper of a Sunday 
saloon or a dive, and the boss who can approach the Governor 
of a State or the President of the United States. There 
is the boss who can solicit a campaign fund from the man 
who wants protection for running a joint, and there is the 
boss who can help a President write his message to Congress 
and raise for him a campaign fund of a quarter of a million 
of dollars. There is the boss who rounds up the voters who 
cannot read, and the boss who steals the Presidency of the 
United States by thieving election tricks. 

The public service offers unbounded opportunities for 
graft. The men who seek these opportunities form a 
brotherhood of interest, they co-operate for the accomplish- 
ment of their ends, they organize themselves as a party. 
Selfishness divides the plums ; selfishness, favoritism, cun- 
ning and opportunity combine to make a division. The spirit 
of harmony that comes over the warring interests is "boss", 
and the man who can manage this spirit in his f ellowmen and 



66 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

divide up the spoil to please his fellows and enrich himself, is 
"the boss". 

The Constituent Parliamentary Assembly room of the 
people is the clearing house at which all these elements, in- 
terests, and influences will be burned as chaff thrown into 
the fire. The party tramps will flee, and the bosses who have 
feasted themselves on public spoils will content themselves 
with fasting. 

How Parties Govern Us. 

Senator Depew and Governor Hughes tell us how party 
nominations are made. The Governor says : "That the pres- 
ent method of nominating party candidates by delegates at 
conventions is, in the main, a farce, is likewise indisputable. 
Upon this question of fact the people of the State, with a 
knowledge of the actual practices of conventions, are com- 
petent to reach a conclusion. Sophistry cannot obscure the 
actual working of our convention system. Delegates gener- 
ally are like a stage populace who are selected for the pur- 
pose of shouting lustily when they get the cue from the lead- 
ing actors of the political drama. And they seldom play any 
other part. You have in New York City an object lesson of 
politic-! domination, notorious throughout the world, which 
shows not only the possibilities but the logical results of our 
system. And in our up-state counties also there are local 
oligarchies and despotisms." 

"Not long ago Senator Depew, in a candid speech at the 
final ceremonies in the 'Amen Corner' of the old Fifth 
Avenue Hotel, is reported to have said (and I do not under- 
stand that the accuracy of the report has ever been ques- 
tioned) : Tt has often been asked where the real capital of 
the State of New York was located. Well, since before the 
time many of you were born, the capital of this state has been 
right here where I am standing. * * * * * There have been 
many conventions at Saratoga, when the whole State waited 



PRACTICE IN GOVERNMENT BY PARTY 67 

breathlessly for 900 de >n a ticket — whi 

was made up complete and in apple-pie order right in this 
corner.' " 

The Governor tells how deals are ith par: 

agers: "The for special inter Are 

favors and to get the best of the rough a treaty 

with a part}* machine ; that is, by d :he one man or 

with the few iv n communit 

such control." 

State Chairman V he can 

lis. In s "j of the pr< t nominati« 

which threatens to make the leader trouble in keeping 

control of the organizati ent 

scheme I can ad jus I arbitrate dif- 

ferences without a formal or publi ight; under the plan in- 
volved in this bill this would not be \ 

mary would be the occasion of a dis; which 

would leave the party disn d on the 

its real contest with its reel enemi 

State Chairman Conn >methin 

would. 

Mr. Croker told us r Eor his own pocket 

all the time, while he was the leader of Tammany Hall, the 
Democratic organization that has for years ruled Xew York 
City and spent much money. His present life of luxury 
bears out his testimony that he was thinking more of his 
pockets than the pockets of the people. 

The report of the Chicago Grand Jury tells us how the 
politicians make themselves ful at the polls. 

Commissioner Bingham of New York City tells of the 
rich gold mine that is to be i in public office. He said : 

"This job of police commissioner, for example, would be a 
regular gold mine to a dishonest official. If it were put up 
at auction to the highest bidder, a man could well afford to 



68 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

pay one million dollars for a year's opportunity to accept what 
the criminal classes would be only too glad to offer him." He 
says that he was offered six hundred thousand dollars a year 
if he would protect certain criminal interests by simply not 
prosecuting them. 

During the last campaign Mr. Hearst exposed a number 
of men high in official life by showing their connection with 
the Standard Oil Co. 

Even the President of the United States got Mr. Harri- 
man and the cabinet officers to raise a large campaign fund 
to "save" New York, and then invited the same Mr. Harri- 
man to come to Washington to talk over the message. The 
life insurance investigation that brought Mr. Hughes into 
prominence exposed the manner in which political commit- 
tees take money from corporations for favors to be granted 
in return. 

After contemplating it all, an honest man feels like 
shrinking from such company altogether, or going into it 
with a pitchfork and muckrake. 

The search of Diogenes through our capitals with his 
lantern would fail to discover the honest man. When we 
find a man who will not steal in public life, we lose control of 
ourselves in praising him, as if only one honest man could be 
found in a generation. 

Is such a cancerous growth, such a rotten sore of cor- 
ruption in our body politic necessary ? Must we endure such 
government ? Is it "undesirable" to destroy parties ? 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 69 
CHAPTER VIII. 
PARTY GOVERNS ENT A NECESSARY FAILURE. 

The Theory. 

The theory of representative government is that the 
people choose officers to represent them, to speak in place of 
the people, and that this is done because the people cannot 
meet together to tell what they want. 

The theory of party action is that men who have 
common opinions, men who want the same kind of laws or 
the same principle of government enacted into law. will form 
an organization and act together as a party. Such a party is 
entirely outside the constitution and laws, and is merely a 
voluntary association of individuals actuated by a common 
desire and purpose working together for a common end to 
get their desires enacted into laws. The men who want 
socialism will form a socialist party. The men who want free 
trade will form a party to express that principle, and those 
who want protection will have a party of protection. Each 
principle or question will have its party to express or repre- 
sent it. 

Each party nominates candidates for public office and 
tries to have them elected. 

When a party is successful in getting its officers elected, 
the principle or question for which that party stands, is 
enacted into law, — perhaps. The party in power represents a 
majority of the people, and it is proper for the officers to do 
what that majority have said in their platform they wish 
done. That is the theory of government by majority and of 
government by parties. 

The Practice. 
The theory would be all right JF — 

If there was but one question that all the people wanted 
to decide, and if that question was clearly and distinctly 



70 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

stated and presented so there would be two clear sides to it, 
then that theory would be all right, then the people could take 
sides and by voting for one party or the other determine what 
the majority of the people want, and the officers elected 
would be able to pass a law giving the people what they ask 
for. 

BUT there are a great many questions and principles 
that are very important to a great many people, a great many 
questions they want to decide. Some want to decide the 
question of socialism ; some want to discuss government 
ownership of railroads, or telegraphs, or mines ; others want 
to pass on an income tax ; there are advocates of the single 
tax ; some want to talk about the gold standard, and some 
want the double standard and some want free silver ; some 
want paper money; some want free trade and some must 
have protection ; some want to guarantee bank deposits ; some 
want state insurance ; some say the women should vote and 
some say the men who cannot read should not vote ; but we 
all want what we want, and that we can get through the 
Washington Party. That party proposes to let us all have 
just what we want, and that is why we are all going to join 
that party soon. 

But let us take up just one general question to see how 
many divisions there are to it, and how many parties there 
would have to be to give the people a chance to express them- 
selves upon it. 

Let us take up the temperance question. Some want 
prohibition straight, some want the state dispensary similar to 
the plan of South Carolina ; some want high license ; some 
want low license ; some want local option for cities ; some 
want county option ; some want open saloons on Sunday and 
some want them closed. It would take half a dozen parties 
to settle this one question of temperance because there are 
so many different phases of the question, and each party can 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE -]\ 

represent but one side of each proposition. Now, if each 
feature of this question was represented by a party and all 
the people would let all the other questions rest and give 
their attention to this question of temperance, what would be 
the result of the election? Why, no party would have a 
majority of votes, and no party would probably have enough 
votes in the legislature to pass any kind of law. Most of the 
people of the state are temperate and want some restricti 
of the liquor traffic, and if they had a chance to ex] 
selves they would be able to do so. Will not a majorit 
for some phase of the question? Probably not. Will not a 
majority of the people want the saloons closed on Sunday? 
Probably they would say so if they had the chance to do 
but they cannot do so unless we cut out all other questions 
and make them consider this one question. "Shall the saloons 
be closed on Sunday?" If we have each phase of the ques- 
tion represented by a party, then each voter can vote for but 
one party. The man who votes for straight prohibition, of 
course, wants the saloons closed on Sunday, but he cannot 
vote for prohibition and for closing the saloons on Sunday 
at the same time. If he votes for prohibition he must ac- 
tually vote against the party that wants to close the Sunday 
saloons. To close the saloons on Sunday we must elect the 
Sunday closing saloon party to power, and every vote cast 
for prohibition is a vote counted against the Sunday closing 
party. Every man who votes for high license votes against 
the proposition to close the saloons on Sunday. Every man 
who votes for the dispensary system votes against closing 
the Sunday saloon, for all those votes count against that 
part}'. But you say the man who votes for prohibition would 
have a Sunday closing plank in his platform. True, but un- 
less his party is put in power the planks of his platform 
amount to as much as the planks in a sunken ship. It is the 
principle behind the party that gets the most votes that 



72 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

counts, and all other votes amount to nothing. If the party 
that wants open saloons on Sunday should get four hundred 
thousand votes, the party that wants closed saloons three 
hundred thousand, the party that wants prohibition three 
hundred thousand, the party that wants high license two 
hundred thousand, the party that wants the state dispensary, 
but not on Sunday, three hundred thousand, and the party 
that wants low license and no Sunday saloons, one hundred 
thousand, what would be the result ? Why, the saloons would 
be open by a vote of the people acting through the wonder- 
ful political parties, that proposition would have a clear plu- 
rality of one hundred thousand votes. But there are twelve 
hundred thousand votes cast by men who do not want the 
open saloons. True again, but their votes don't count, they 
are scattered among several parties and each has fewer votes 
than the party that stands for open saloons. You see our 
party system makes us vote for parties and not for prin- 
ciples. When we vote for the prohibition party we cannot 
have our influence counted for any other temperance party, 
but our vote is against all those parties. Only votes for can- 
didates who win, are of any account. If the prohibitionists 
could vote for prohibition and also vote to close the Sunday 
saloon, the proposition to close the saloon would be carried, 
because this proposition would receive the votes of the pro- 
hibitionists and the votes of the Sunday closing party com- 
bined, but under the party system their votes cannot be com- 
bined, one must work against the other. We must vote for 
parties, and it is only the votes cast for the party that wins, 
that count. If one party wants to open the saloons on Sun- 
day, anybody who wants his vote counted against the propo- 
sition must vote with the party that stands for that one prin- 
ciple. When there is such a party, it is throwing away one's 
vote to vote for prohibition and Sunday closing, for high 
license and Sunday closing, or for anything else and Sun- 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 73 

day closing. It is only the vote that is cast for Sunday clos- 
ing that counts. If that party receives the most votes, the 
votes that the party of prohibition receives may be sym- 
pathy votes, but in the game of politics they are thrown away. 

The King's highway is the path of the successful party, 
the party that gets a plurality vote, and all travelers under 
any other banner, no matter how good their intentions may 
be, are on the losing path. They will never "Get there.'' 

Through political parties it is impossible for the people 
to actually express themselves on the liquor question, be- 
cause there are more than two sides to that question. The 
man who wants prohibition cannot register his vote for 
any other phase of the question that may be represented by 
any other party, and he cannot vote for any other principle 
outside of the liquor question that may be represented by 
other parties. In the above illustration we see that a party 
representing one-fourth of the voters of the State may secure 
the enactment of its principles, while three-fourths of the 
people are against its principles. Thus the party that stood 
for open saloons with four hundred thousand votes had a 
plurality of one-hundred thousand over the next highest 
party, but all the minority parties had a vote of twelve hun- 
dred thousand, three times as much as the party that carried 
the election. All these minority parties wanted the saloons 
closed on Sunday, but that was a secondary question in 
their platforms. The prohibitionists wanted prohibition alto- 
gether, but of course, they want the saloons closed on Sun- 
day, yet, if they want to vote for prohibition they cannot 
also vote for closing the saloons on Sunday. They can have 
the principle in their platform, to be sure, but the votes for 
the proposition to close the saloons have no more effect 
than their votes on the question of prohibition. Unless their 
party has a plurality vote, their votes amount to nothing. 
The votes that are cast for the winning party are the only 



74 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

ones that count, and the principles represented by the party 
are the only principles that receive the approval of the 
people. Is a system that works so ill as this a success? Is 
it not rather a cumbersome blundering failure ? 

But, you may say, "Let the people who want the saloons 
closed Sunday vote for the party that proposes to close them 
on Sunday." Very well, those who want the saloons closed 
on Sunday and think that is the most important 
proposition to vote for, do vote for it. The prohibitionist 
thinks the saloon should be closed on Sunday, but he thinks 
they should be closed altogether and votes for the greater 
proposition, and therefore, he cannot vote for what he con- 
siders the minor question. Under our government can four 
hundred thousand voters have their way against the senti- 
ment of twelve hundred thousand? Very easily, if the 
twelve hundred thousand voters are divided upon other 
questions into parties, no one having as many as four hun- 
dred thousand votes. That is the trick in democratic gov- 
ernment when we must have parties to represent principles, 
when we cannot vote except we vote for a party, which 
must necessarily have one main proposition. If we could 
make all the people vote for the question whether the saloons 
shall be open on Sunday, the vote would stand four hundred 
thousand for, and twelve hundred thousand against, and 
they would be closed with a bang; but the twelve hundred 
thousand voters have other things in their minds, and by 
voting for what they think most important, do not combine 
their votes, and the saloons run wide open. We cannot 
make the people vote on this one question of Sunday closing 
without making them give up their little parties and join 
one of the parties that stand for Sunday closing or for Sun- 
day opening. If we think of making the people all vote on 
the Sunday closing proposition, some will say why not make 
them vote on the high license question? Why not make 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A ;■ ARY FAILURE 75 

them all vote for or against low license, why not make 
all vote for or against prohibition? Why? In lee 1. \ 

not? 

Why not have them all vote for or against woman 
suffrage? Why not have them vote for or against any of 
one hundred possible questions that some one of the people 
want to vote for? We cannot make the people confine tl 
voting and their parties to one phase of one question, but 
unless we do that the; s properly 

on that question. If we could do this, then the greater 
tion would come up. "What que make them 

consider?" There are many pro] 

which one shall we decide fir ery par lid want 

question decided first, and we would have to take a vote 
to s >n was to b< and that is wdiat 

a vote for a third parly really amounts to. A vote for social- 
ism is simply a notice that the man who casts that vote 
wants the question of socialism considered, but if the mass 
of the people are thinking about other questions, socialism 
will not be considered, and the vote that the socialist party 
does not receive,, does not represent the vote ''against'' so- 
cialism. It represents the vote of those who think some 
other question is more important than socialism just now. 

"There is more than one hole in the skimmer." Yes, 
the political party skimmer is full of holes. I put my 
skimmer, my wish for political principles, into the pool of 
political issues and try to skim out some questions that are 
floating around in the pool like noodles in the soup. I want 
to skim out women suffrage noodles. I see many there that 
look like women suffrage noodles, and probably do have the 
label on them somewhere, but when I put my skimmer into 
the soup and begin to lift it up, I find that noodles begin to 
slip away and crawl through the holes, one goes through 
the free trade hole, another slips out of the protection mesh. 






76 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

still one more falls down through socialism, a nice prom- 
ising looking one plumps through the big opening for free 
silver back into the soup, and so on till I pull my skimmer 
out and find that I have only my one vote in the form of a 
poor little noodle that did not slip through the party mesh. 

The Necessity. 

It is said parties are necessary. What are they neces- 
sary for? They are necessary to nominate candidates for 
office so the people can decide between those nominated by 
the different parties. That is a peculiar idea. Must the 
people disagree through parties on candidates so they can 
agree by voting on officers? Is it necessary to have a good 
man picked out by one party and a bad man picked out by 
the other party so that the good man may be elected ? Would 
it not be proper to have the people organized into one party 
so they could pick out just a good man and not run the risk 
of having the bad man chosen to office? Why must they 
be put into two camps to make a contest over two men who 
are picked out by the parties without any contest? 

Of course, some organization is necessary to nominate 
candidates for office and the people must take the candidates 
proposed by one of the parties. 

Parties sprung up for a different purpose than to merely 
nominate candidates for office. Parties were born to ex- 
press principles, as we have seen. Principles are more than 
men, parties are more than candidates for office. Principles 
are the life of institutions, candidates are merely the banner 
carriers for the parties. A party has no excuse for exist- 
ence save as it represents a principle. 

Under the chapters on "Organization" and "Direct 
Nominations" we discuss the necessity of parties for the 
purpose of nominating candidates. In this chapter we deal 
with the parties as organizations for the expression of prin- 






PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 77 

ciples, and purpose to show that as a means for the expres- 
sion of the principles of the people, t 1 .ey are failures, and 
clumsy devices suitable for savages and for the government 
of people who cannot read or write, who cannot govern 
themselves. 

We Cannot Express Ourselves. 

Even if all the people were educated, even if all the 
politicians were honest, even if all the people attended their 
party primaries, and voted at elections, even if they had 
direct nominations and if the best men were always nomi- 
nated for office, even if the party voters actually met and 
each party decided on what principles it wanted to advocate, 
government by parties would still be a failure. 

What are parties supposed to be necessary for? They 
are supposed to be necessary to represent principles. But a 
party can represent only one important principle at a time, 
only one side of one question, and there may be several sides 
to this question. We cannot express our wishes by voting 
for a party. If there is a party that expresses our views on 
some one question, we can vote for that party and thus vote 
for the principle it represents, but we know that all the people 
who believe in that same principle are not voting for it be- 
cause some of them are in other parties that do not consider 
that principle as being important and they will therefore not 
think much about it, or vote for it. To get a complete ex- 
pression of the will of the people on a question it is neces- 
sary to have the people divide on that one question and on 
no other, their attention must be on one proposition at a 
time. 

Suppose I want free trade and the dispensary system 
and my neighbor wants free trade and prohibition. For us 
two voters there must be three parties in order to enable us 
to express ourselves on these three propositions, to say noth- 
ing about the many questions that we may like to consider. 



78 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

To consider these three questions we would need a prohibi- 
tion party, a dispensary system party and a free trade party, 
and then we will not know which party we want to vote for. 
If I want two questions, free trade and dispensary system, I 
must sacrifice one in order to vote for the other. Now T , 
which shall I vote for and which shall I give up ? If I decide 
that free trade is the most important I will vote for that 
party, and my neighbor, we will say, thinks prohibition is the 
chief issue and votes for that party. That does not please 
me at all. I cannot vote for my side of the liquor question, 
and my neighbor who ought to vote with me for free trade, 
because he believes in it, will persist in voting for prohibi- 
tion. The principle of free trade ought to have two votes 
instead of one. The dispensary system ought to have one 
vote and it gets none. Is not the party system a failure in 
expressing the will of the people? If we were men capable 
of having only one little idea at a time, and if all the people 
could be made to consider this same one little idea, then 
government by parties would be successful. 

Vastness of territory and diversity of industry and so- 
cial conditions bring up many questions ot importance for 
consideration simultaneously. One party can represent but 
one principle at a time. The people can put but one party 
in power at a time, and it takes a generation for a party to 
get into powder and do what it was chosen to do. With the 
political horizon darkened by problems vital to social exist- 
ence America has stood midst the din of parties and the 
war of factions for forty years waiting the adjustment of the 
tariff. Just now we are passing through a period of dis- 
turbances and fright, not knowing w T hat will be done with it, 
the Congress having been called into special session to con- 
sider it. After all these years of discussion and turmoil, 
after having complete control of the government for twelve 
years, the Republican President calls a Republican Congress 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 79 

together in extra session to do what should have been 
long ago, — and is the end yet? Shall we not have the tar 
in the next campaign ? 

We Want to Vote for Principles. 

Why, you say, "There can be a party for every principle 
or question that people want to decide, they can have as 
many parties as they want, you can start one yourself if you 
do not find one to suit you." Very true, we can have all the 
parties we want, but we cannot vote for all the parties we 
want, and that is the whole trouble. If I could vote for all 
the parties I want to, I would not be writing this book. Do 
I want to vote for more than 01 ? Well, I want to vote 

for the principles that are expressed by more than one party. 
I do not care about the party if J cm vote for the principle-. 
I have more than one idea on public questions and I kn 
most other people have several ideas. I am willing to let 
each one vote for what he wants, and am anxious to h 
him do so, and that is all I want. The man who wants pro- 
hibition can vote for prohibition, but the man who wants 
prohibition also wants many other principles that he cannot 
vote for, and I want him to have a chance to vote for all he 
wants. T want this to be a free country, freedom of speech, 
freedom of the press, freedom of conscience and freedom in 
voting for what we want. The Constitution says that the 
right to vote should not be denied. I want that provision 
of the Constitution to be in actual force. 

I want to vote for certain principles and I want all the 
people wdio agree with me on these principles to be able to 
vote with me for them. They cannot do so now. Cannot 
all the men who want prohibition vote for it ? No, they can- 
not. Some of the men who want prohibition also want so- 
cialism, and they vote for socialism, and they cannot vote for 
socialism and prohibition at the same time. Some men want 
government ownership of railroads. Cannot they start a 



8o THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

party and vote for that principle? They can start a party, 
but all the people who want government ownership cannot 
vote for it because they want other things that they will vote 
for. 

Let every man vote for all the parties he wants to. 
How can he do it? Let him vote for the principles of all 
the parties he wants to. Can he do this? Yes. The man 
who believes parties are necessary, does not see how a man 
can vote for a principle without voting for a party. It could 
not be done when people were savages. Now we are edu- 
cated, we can read and write, now we can say what we want, 
now we can express our wishes by the ballot, now we can vote 
for free trade without having to vote for a free-trader, — if 
the principle of the Washington Party is operative in the 
government. 

The men elected to office do not have to believe what 
we do. They are to do what we tell them we want done. 

Let the people rule. When the government was formed 
there were few newspapers, but newspapers have come to 
enlighten the people. There were no telegraphs, no tele- 
phones, but they have come to connect all the world into one 
little village where each can hear all the others talk. There 
were few schools and each man had to pay for the education 
of his children. Now, we have free schools, and all the 
children must be educated, and these free schools have come 
without the work of parties, they have grown up as a part 
of our lives in spite of party. There were not postoffices, 
but they came. At first the postal service was run by pri- 
vate individuals, and then the government took it up. We 
did not have parties, but they came. What did they come 
for? To enable the people to express themselves. They 
came as private affairs. But we say they do not enable the 
people to express themselves, but rather prevent them from 
doing so. Under the pretense of enabling the people to ex- 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 81 

press themselves, they enable the politicians to take the place 
of the people in exercising the powers of government. As 
the government provided for the sending of letters among 
the people, so that they could express themselves more fully. 
let them now take the machinery of political organization 
into their hands, and let them destroy party organization 
and substitute in its place the organization of all the people. 
Parties are necessary ! No, the people are necessary. Or- 
ganization is necessary, but will it be the people that shall 
be organized instead of the masters of the people to rule 
over them? 

Can Not Combine Principles. 

You may say you can put two or more principles, all 
the principles you want, into one party platform. Yes. The 
more principles you put into a party platform the less voters 
you will have in the party. If you put in all the principles that 
are up for discussion you will not have anybody in the party, 
for there will be some principles in the platform that will be 
opposed by every voter. Each person will object to one or 
more planks of the platform. If you have just one prin- 
ciple in the party you can get the people to vote for that if 
they want to. But the principle that will bring one person 
into the party will drive away another person. 

People do not agree on enough questions to be put into 
"parties". Parties are for classes, and there are no classes in 
America distinct enough to have parties. We had a North- 
ern party and a Southern party, a slavery party and a free 
party, and we had the greatest civil war the world has ever 
seen. Europe has had Catholic parties and Protestant par- 
ties, and she has had centuries of religious wars. Armenia 
has a Christian party and a Mohammedan party, and mas- 
sacres. Washington feared parties as the exponents of 
classes, and they can be nothing but exponents of classes. 
Party government is necessarily class government. The man 



82 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

who says we must have parties would say we must have 
classes and class government. We may have a laboring class 
party and a capitalist class party, and if parties are really 
necessary we shall have them. Unless the government or- 
ganizes the people so that all classes can get their just re- 
ward, the classes will organize themselves as political parties 
to secure in the scramble of elections what the others seek 
to deny them. From the war of bullets we advance to the 
more cruel war of ballots. When the ballot comes to repre- 
sent merely force to be used by those possessing the right of 
franchise to defend themselves and get what they can from 
their fellowmen, then we shall experience the logical resuls 
of party government. If that is necessary, then we may as 
well begin to build the pyramids to adorn the ruins of 
American democracy and to warn the builders of future civ- 
ilizations when the people shall clear away the wreck of our 
failure. 

Sample Election. 

To show how clumsy is our system of voting for a party 
in order to vote for a principle, and to show how ill-adapted 
is the method to letting the people express themselves, I have 
prepared a diagram showing how ten men belonging to ten 
parties would vote: First, when voting for parties, or 
putting a check mark over a party column or pulling a 
"party" lever. Second, when voting for principles rather 
than for parties, or putting a check mark, vertical or horizon- 
tal, over the column of each principle or pulling a "principle" 
lever. 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 



83 





1 
1 
1 

1 

« 

1 
1 

1 


2 

I 
I 

I 

I 

I 
I 
I 


3 

1 
1 

1 
1 


4 

1 

1 
1 
1 


5 
1 
1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 


6 

1 
1 

1 


7 

1 

1 

1 

1 


8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 


9 

1 

_ 

1 
1 
1 


10 

1 

1 

1 
1 
1 
1 


O 

■— 

4 
7 
3 
4 
5 
3 
7 
6 

3 
9 


T. 

a 

u 

< 

6 

3 

7 
6 

5 
7 
3 
4 

7 

1 


Socialism 

Free Trade 

Protection 

Prohibition 

Gov. Ownership 

Women Suf. 

Income Tax 

Corporation Tax 

Direct Nom 

Wash. Party 



The names in the left-hand column are the names of 
parties. There is one voter for each party, ten men in all. 
If these vote according to party, each party would receive 
one vote, as shown by the vertical marks in the columns num- 
bered 1, 2, etc. The vote of the socialist is marked in column 
one. The vote of the free trader is marked in column two. 
etc. These marks are in heavy type, and show that each 
party receives one vote. The light vertical marks in column 
one show how the members of the other parties would vote 
on the question of socialism. Vertical marks mean "for" 
and horizontal marks mean "against" ; thus, the free trader 
votes for socialism, the protectionist votes against socialism, 
the prohibitionist votes for it. The marks in the second ver- 
tical column show how the members of the parties vote on 
"free trade" ; the socialist votes for it, the protectionist votes 
against it, the prohibitionist votes against it, etc. Each man 
can vote for his own principle (or party) and can also vote 
for or against each of the other principles ; instead of there 
being one vote for each party, there will be ten votes cast on 
each principle, for or against. As a result of such an elec- 
tion we will know the wishes of each of the ten men in re- 



8 4 



THE WASHINGTON PARTY 



gard to each of the ten principles, and will have a perfect ex- 
pression of the will of the people. 

The last two columns show the result of the vote, how 
many vote for and against each principle. Thus, four vote 
for socialism and six against it ; seven vote for free trade and 
three against it, etc. 

Pooling Issues. 

To show how putting planks or issues into a party will 
drive away voters, I produce a diagram which shows that if 
these ten questions before discussed, were put into one plat- 
form, they would not receive the vote of a single one of the 
ten men, but that if the ten principles could be voted for 
separately by each of the voters, each question would receive 
nine affirmative votes. 

Each man approves nine of the principles, and each man 
opposes one of the principles, but the one principle that is 
opposed is a different one in the case of each man, and if all 
the principles are put into one platform, each man would 
have an objection to it, and each would have to vote for 
something he does not want or not vote for something he 
does want. 







2 


3 
i 


4 


5 


6 
i 


7 


8 


9 


IO 


o 

fa 

9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 


09 
.S 

< 


Socialism 


- 


— 


Free Trade 

Protection 

Prohibition 

Gov. Ownership. 

Women Suf 

Income Tax 

Corporation Tax 

Direct Nom 

Wash. Party 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 85 

Rule of the Majority. 

Parties are necessary to nominate candidates for office, 
but when the candidates are nominated, it is impossible for 
the people to elect any candidates except those nominated by 
the parties. The party is necessary to enable the people to 
choose, and yet it prevents them from choosing except from 
one of the two great parties. Of all the men in the country, 
we can take our choice between two for president. Parties 
are necessary to enable the people to express their opinions, 
but parties make it absolutely impossible for the people to 
express their political opinions and give voice to them in 
the government. 

We have seen how the people operate the government 
through parties in theory. The theory is very good if we do 
not stop to think how it works. But when we come to ex- 
amine the working of the theory that the people rule them- 
selves through the agency of parties, we find that the fruit 
of the theory is ashes. 

A party can represent but one idea. The party must 
be in complete control of the government in order to get its 
idea enacted into law. It takes years for a party to grow 
strong enough to secure entire control of the government. 
This is a government, then, in which under favorable con- 
ditions one idea can be enacted into law in a generation. 

The Democrats want tariff reform and the Republicans 
want protection. Some people want to decide the question 
of prohibition. The democrats cannot have the two prin- 
ciples, tariff reform and prohibition, for all those who want 
tariff reform would not want prohibition. The Republicans 
could not advocate prohibition for similar reasons. So we 
must have a third party to express the principle of prohibi- 
tion. Which of the two questions shall be decided? 

In the election the voter would make up his mind on 
which side of the tariff question he would like to vote, and 



86 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

on which side of the prohibition question he would like to 
vote; then he would have to make up his mind on which 
question he would vote, for he could not vote on both. He 
must make two decisions ; first, "Which question is more im- 
portant?"; second, "Which way shall I vote on the more im- 
portant question ?" It would be well to have a King to decide 
which is the more important question, and then have all the 
people consider this one question and forbid them to consider 
any other until this one is disposed of. If some try to consider 
the tariff question and some the prohibition question, there 
will not be a complete expression of the will of the people on 
either question. If the two questions were fairly discussed 
and voted on, the result might be something like this : fifteen 
million people might vote; four million for tariff reform, 
three and one-half million against it; four million for prohi- 
bition, and three and one-half million against it. We do not 
know whether the people want tariff reform or not, whether 
they want prohibition or not. Neither question has received 
a majority of the votes, neither vote represents the will of the 
people since neither is a majority vote. The seven and 
one-half million who vote on the tariff question have views 
on the prohibition question, but they cannot express their 
views. The seven and one-half million who vote on the pro- 
hibition question, have opinions on the tariff question, but 
their opinions are unexpressed. Election after election 
might pass with the questions still undecided because neither 
side could get a majority vote. Before either question can 
be decided the people will have to determine which question 
they will consider first. With several questions represented 
by several parties, it is impossible to know what the people 
want, except one party receive more votes than all other 
parties combined. Thus, if eight million vote for tariff re- 
form, four million for protection, two million for prohibition, 
and one and one-half million for something else, we know that 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 87 

the majority of the people want tariff reform. But the 
stronger third parties become the less likely it is that any one 
of the parties will receive a majority vote. So before the 
people can vote decisively on a question, they must decide on 
what one question they will vote. 

One at a Time. 

A party can represent only one principle at a time. 
There are at least a dozen questions that we would like to 
vote on, at the present time. A dozen people will have a 
dozen different views on these questions. If there were only 
a dozen people to vote it would probably be necessary to have 
a dozen parties to accommodate their views. A party with 
any considerable following can represent only one principle, 
for as soon as it tries to put two principles into its platform 
it will make it impossible for some of the people to belong to 
it, for there will be some who will want one of the principles 
but not the other. So, in order to make it possible for some 
of the people to vote for each of the principles of govern- 
ment, it is necessary to have a party for every principle. 
Then the people can take their choice, but they can choose 
only one principle out of the twelve. Only one party can 
hold the power of a government at a time, and the voter must 
choose the one he wants and let the other eleven go. There 
will be some people voting for each of the twelve principles 
represented by these twelve parties. And if there were 
twelve parties, how could any one of them secure control of 
the government ? It ought to be so that each man could vote 
for or against all of the principles of all of the parties, for to 
him one may be just as important as another. Twelve par- 
ties are necessary in order to give the people a chance to vote 
on twelve questions, but they can vote on only one. The 
government has twelve diseases requiring twelve kinds of 
medicine, but you can give it only one kind, for one disease. 



B8 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

It must get over the other eleven diseases without medicine. 
If the people want to express their wishes on twelve points, 
they may vote for one and wish for the other eleven. We 
may take a vote of twelve men, and find that eight want pro- 
hibition, seven want free trade, nine want the gold standard, 
eight want government ownership of railroads, ten want the 
government to dig the Panama canal, eleven want to restrict 
immigration, twelve want peace, six want to annex Cuba, 
eight want women suffrage and nine want socialism. Now, 
what kind of parties can you figure out so that these people 
can express their wishes ? Have a party for each principle ? 
How many votes would each party receive? One, two, or 
three, and some not any. We can select one question and 
make them all vote on that one and decide that one. But 
what one shall we select? It would be harder to decide on 
what question to select than it would be to decide the question 
itself. If we could present the one important question, that 
all the people would consider, we could easily settle that one 
question, and then take the others. But who can say that we 
shall decide on one question in preference to another ? Each 
party wants its remedy voted on right now. 

The prohibitionists want their question settled now. 
Year in and year out they have faithfully voted for their 
principle, with a hope that sometime the question would re- 
ceive the consideration of the people. The prohibitionists 
have other opinions, but they allow the Democratic and Re- 
publican parties to run the government as they choose, while 
they vote for their one principle. They really have no more 
to do with the government than if they lived in Mexico. As 
long as they vote for prohibition, with the other parties 
sure to win the election, they are practically disfranchised. 
They can vote and their votes are counted, but they do not 
count. The socialists want their principles settled, and year 
after year they vote in the hope that the people will consider 
their question as the one to be settled. 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 89 

Free Ballot. 

We may as well say to the Prohibitionists and Socialists, 
and all other third party people, "You cannot vote," and dis- 
franchise them. Or we may say to them, "If you vote we 
will throw your votes away." That is what we do anyway. 
We say to them, "You can take part in the government and 
have your vote counted, but in order to do so you must vote 
for Mr. T. or Mr. B., and if you vote for anybody else, your 
vote is thrown out." 

"The land of the free!" Suppose a man wants prohibi- 
tion and socialism, has he not a right to express his wishes? 
How can he do it? Suppose a man who is a Republican by 
birth wants free trade, what can he do? Suppose a born 
Democrat wants protection? What did Democrats who 
wanted "gold" do in 1896? What did the Republicans who 
wanted protection and free silver do? 

If the question that we think is most important is taken 
up by one of the two leading parties, we are fortunate. We 
can then vote on it, but we are disfranchised on all other 
questions. If the question that we consider most important 
is not taken up by one of the two leading parties, we are dis- 
franchised altogether — w r e are as foreigners. We are under 
the government but not of it. We are governed, but not with 
our consent. We vote, but the votes do not count. 

The more educated we are, the more likely we are to be 
in some third party. And if we were as wise as Socrates and 
we vote not for one of the two men who have been put up by 
politicians of the two great parties, our votes are of no ac- 
count. But we see men who cannot read and do not think, 
vote for their Masters ; their votes are counted, and their 
votes put men over us to govern us. It is not the intelligent 
who disfranchise the ignorant, but the ignorant under the 
politicians have disfranchised the intelligent. "The land of 
the free," if you do not want to think, but are willing to be 
a slave to the two great parties. 



90 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Suppose all the Prohibitionists, all the Socialists, all the 
Independence Leaguers, 40 per cent of the Democrats, 60 per 
cent of the Republicans, and all other parties and factions 
want government ownership of railroads. How are they 
going to get it if the two great parties will not give the people 
a chance to vote on it ? Let them form a new party ! But 
what will they do with the little parties they have already 
formed to express their choice of other principles? What 
can they do to get the 40 per cent of the Democrats and 60 
per cent of Republicans to leave their party and vote for this 
principle ? 

Would it not be well if they could all vote for govern- 
ment ownership of railroads? Would it not be well if they 
could all vote on all of the many questions that are of interest 
and are of vital importance to the people to-day? Then it 
would be a government of the people, by the people, and for 
the people. Now it is a government over the people, without 
the participation of the people, and in spite of the people. 

Throwing Away Votes. 
People hesitate to vote for third party ideas, but they 
will keep choosing between the two great parties because they 
know that one or the other will win, and they want to ex- 
press their choice between the two. We say of people voting 
third party tickets: "You are throwing away your votes." 
We know that their little parties cannot win, that one of the 
two great parties is the only one that can succeed. So if the 
people form a third party to bring up some new question or 
some question that the others will not or do not bring up, 
they will be throwing their votes away. When the people 
really try to decide some question, when they strive to ex- 
press their wishes in the government, they throw their votes 
away. When they vote for either of the two great parties, 
the politicians of which are "running" for the offices, they 
are not throwing their votes away, they are exercising their 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 91 

"rights of citizenship!" But as soon as they become inde- 
pendent of the two parties and try to express their thoughts 
and wishes, then they throw their votes away ! Is it not a 
queer state of affairs when, in a free country, if the people 
try to express their wishes in regard to the government, they 
will throw away their votes? If the people form parties to 
express their opinions, which is the only way to give ex- 
pression to their opinions, their rotes are thrown away. 

We cannot express our wishes without parties, we cer- 
tainly cannot express them with parties, and as far as repre- 
senting the wishes of the people is concerned, our govern- 
ment, under party rule, does not do it, and cannot do it, and 
the people play a failure and a farce in pretending to express 
their wishes. 

The Governme)it Farm. 

A farmer hires a man to plant corn. He wants some 
potatoes planted. Can he instruct this man to plant them or 
must he hire another hand? Must he also employ another 
hand to plant beans, and still another to sow wheat? Must 
he hire a party to care for each crop or can he have a reli- 
able man and have him first attend to one crop and then 
another? 

Our goverment is a garden in which the growing plants 
are principles and policies. When we want free trade estab- 
lished, must we hire men who believe in free trade? Then 
if we want an income tax must we wait till the time of the 
free traders expires and hire another set of men who believe 
in an income tax? And when we can get rid of these men 
we may hire men who believe in prohibition to set the cold 
water plant. One plant at a time is all we can raise on this 
farm, because we can hire only one workman at a time and 
he must believe in what he does, and he can believe in only 
one thing at a time. 



92 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

For forty years we have been trying to get the tariff 
planted, cultivated and harvested and out of the way so that 
we might plant something else in the garden, but there the 
plant is still growing with nothing but thorns on its branches, 
and every time we touch it it gives us a panic. 

We have a choice variety of seed under different party 
labels that we would like to plant, but it will be ages before 
we shall have a chance to see what the plants are like if we 
have no better luck than we have had with tariff farmers. 

After we hire a "party" to plant a certain crop for us, it 
is hard for us to discharge him ; he will not go when his time 
is up but persists in staying, drawing his pay and keeping 
other men we want to hire from doing their work. The 
party gets possession of our farm and keeps possession after 
his work is done. Possession is nine points of the law, and 
one party gives way to another only after a bitter struggle. 

Some years ago, when a high tariff law was being 
passed, one of the Congressmen exulting in the fact that his 
party was entrenched in power by the peculiar way United 
States Senators are elected, said that the baby boys of that 
time would wear whiskers before the law they were passing 
could be repealed. Surely the people do not rule. While 
they have been waiting for these tariff grubbers to get done 
with their job they have seen their garden fill up with a rank 
growth of weeds called "trusts". What shall the harvest be? 

The idea that the officers of government must agree with 
the views of the majority of the people on questions of gov- 
ernment is fit for children, it is suitable for a stage of de- 
velopment in which the people cannot express their wants. 
Government by parties means that we cannot govern our- 
selves. Parties are necessary as long as we cannot govern 
ourselves, and as long as we have parties we cannot govern 
ourselves. 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 93 
Third Parties. 

In 1908 there were seven candidates, and in 1900 there 
were eight candidates for President. Since 1840 there have 
been three or more candidates for President at each election, 
except during the Civil War when there were only two. 
Of course, in each campaign all the people knew that one or 
the other of the two great parties would win. The Demo- 
cratic and Republican parties have stood first and second 
on the list when the votes were counted, and the others have 
been third parties. 

In 1872, the Prohibition Party began, and now after ten 
national campaigns it has less than 2 r ; of the total vote. 

The Greenback Party had candidates in three campaigns 
and then ceased. 

The American Party appeared four times, the last time 
with 1,500 votes in the United States. 

1892 the People's Party appeared, made quite a strong 
showing, but in the fifth national election, 1908, had less than 
1% of the total vote. 

In 1888 two Labor Parties appeared, and in the last elec- 
tion one of them received one fourth of \ r r of the votes. 

The ^Socialist Party lpst year received about 3J^% of 
the total vote. 

The Independence League had its first national candi- 
dates in 1908 and received a few scattering votes. 

We may ask in the light of these facts, what is the use 
of third parties? They have never made much impression 
on the other parties, and it looks as though they would not. 
Are not the principles for which they contend worthy, or 
have the principles of the two great parties been so over- 
shadowing that the people would not consider other ques- 
tions ? 

From 1880 to 1892 the issue between the two great par- 
ties was tariff reform. In the last four campaigns we have 



94 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

heard a good deal of the same subject, and now, after twenty- 
eight years of discussion, the Republican party has decided 
that the tariff needs to be reformed at once, and the Presi- 
dent has called Congress together in extra session to do it. 
But who will be satisfied with their work? Will it not be 
made the paramount issue by the Democrats in the next 
campaign, and has this question kept the people so spell- 
bound that they could not or would not join the third par- 
ties? 

The people are in the two great parties. What is the 
use of their going out of them to throw away their votes? 
The people cannot find any party that expresses their views, 
and so they may as well stay where they are. Some men in 
the Democratic Party want free silver, some want gold, some 
want free trade, some protection, some government owner- 
ship, etc. The party stands for some things some of them 
want and some things that the rest of them don't want. But 
what is the difference ? They cannot express their choice of 
principles in the party, they cannot express themselves outside 
of the party, so the only thing they can do is to vote for the 
party, and never mind the principles. The same with the 
Republicans. Many thinking men cannot see that there is 
much difference between the principles of the two great par- 
ties, that they both pretend to advocate everything good, and 
when entrusted with power they do nothing that is good. 
The two parties are bad enough, what is the use of making 
the strife worse with more parties ? The people are sick of 
parties. 

Failure in Party Theory. 

Parties are supposed to give expression to the views of 
the members of the party. They do not. 

Governor Hughes says : "Who make the party nomina- 
tions ? Not the party, but a few active men whose followers 
have the discipline of an army." 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 95 

Senator Hinman, one of the party leaders, said: "A 
voter amounts to about as much as a cipher with the rim 
dropped off. A few men adopt the platform, the tracks are 
greased and the thing goes through." 

Parliamentary assemblies or caucuses would be neces- 
sary for the parties to express the views of the members, but 
they do not have such caucuses. The members do not attend 
such caucuses as they do have, and, therefore, they have no 
voice in the party. Politicians fail to express the sentiments 
of the members of the party. We may say it is necessary to 
have leaders, that the members of the party must be led. 
What do the leaders lead for? Governor Hughes says power 
is in the hands of "the few who make a business of politic 
Now, what are men in "business" for? To be sure, for their 
health. 

Government by parties would be a necessary failure even 
if all the members of the party were educated, even if they 
were all honest, even if all the members attended caucuses 
which were parliamentary assemblies. 

It would be only part of the people, one party, meeting 
to consider one question. It would be one question that 
would make them a party. They cannot consider more ques- 
tions for that would split the party. Each principle must 
have its party. 

To have a true democratic government, all the people 
must be allowed to assemble and express themselves on all 
questions. Parties will divide the people on principles, but 
the members of a party may take different sides on questions 
that arise under a principle. A perfect system of party gov- 
ernment would divide up the people into little bands, each 
contending for one principle or question. Each band would 
be working for one idea at a time, and it w T ould be practically 
impossible for any principle to receive the support of all the 



96 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

people who believed in it, and therefore, impossible to settle 
even one question at a time. 

The necessity of party presupposes the inability of the 
people to express themselves, and it is proposed to make them 
still more unable by requiring them to act only through par- 
ties. 

Forty million Englishmen govern three hundred million 
Hindus of the Aryan race. How do they do it? By the 
party system. The immense population of India is governed 
by native princes, each prince being in control of a certain 
section. Each section is jealous of the others. While the 
native princes are jealous of one another they will not unite 
to oppose the English government, and so as long as England 
is able to control one prince, she can control them all by 
keeping them at odds with one another. This is how the few 
politicians can govern all the people. This is why school 
teachers, college presidents, ministers and all good people 
will take their directions from saloon-keepers, convicts and 
the worst class of the people. The educated men get into 
parties. The corrupt element control the parties, because 
there is money in it, and the educated element are led by the 
ignorant and corrupt element because they vote for principle. 
As long as the educated people can be divided into parties 
they can be controlled by ignorance combined with cunning, 
and that is the kind of government we have now. 

Only one question can be considered at a time by the 
parties and only one phase of that question, but there are a 
great many questions and sides to questions. 

The idea of the necessity of parties is based on the 
delusion that to express our wish for a principle we must 
choose a man who believes in the same principle that we do. 
That defect will be overcome if we can choose officers and 
then vote for such principles as we desire. The views of the 
officer need make no difference. We can elect a protectionist 



PARTY GOVERNMENT A NECESSARY FAILURE 97 

and instruct him for free trade. If the people want a canal 
it is not necessary that their officers believe a canal is neces- 
sary. When the people do not know what principles they 
want, then they can choose men to represent them and de- 
cide for them. We may need supervisors or selectmen to 
formulate principles for us, but we do not need parties to 
represent principles for us. We can express ourselves on 
principles by ballot. Our ballots can speak for us. 

We used to fight for what we wanted and were led by 
generals. Now we can vote for what we want. We do not 
have to be led in bands to meet our opponents on the battle- 
field, now we do not have to be divided into two camps or 
parties and be led by a "candidate" to give expression to our 
wishes. 

In the early history of England disputes were settled 
by what was called judicial combat. The members to the 
dispute entered the lists, and the victorious one was awarded 
the judgment. First, the contestants themselves entered the 
lists, then a weak man could hire another man to take his 
place. Our trial by jury is a refined form of this combat, 
we have the two parties to the contest — prosecution and de- 
fense, trying to win by points of skill instead of physical 
strength. 

Personal combat by bullets or swords has given way to 
a contest between numbers under parties, and that contest 
must be superceded by the co-operation of intelligence using 
the ballot in parliamentary assemblies when the people shall 
be mea5ured rather than counted. 



98 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER IX. 
ORGANIZATION. 

Shall the People Rule? 
During the last Presidential campaign, Candidate Bryan 
said the paramount issue of the campaign was, "Shall the 
people rule?" Mr. Sherman, candidate for Vice-President 
on the Republican ticket said, "The people do rule." The 
campaign settled neither the questions whether the people 
shall rule, or whether they do rule. 

It is said that the story of the world is a record of the 
trials and efforts of the people in their struggle for liberty. 
The pages of our history seem only a tale of the struggles 
of the people for an answer to the question, Shall the people 
rule ? But we may state they have ruled throughout all the 
ages. 

Truly Cheops did not drive his millions of slaves to 
their work every morning, the people drove them to their 
tasks. Yes, the people do rule. It sometimes appears that 
one man is ruling a mighty nation of men, but that one is 
merely acting for those who stand behind him, and support 
him in his cause. Every monarch has the support of a ma- 
jority of the governing force of his empire, and when he 
ceases to have this support his crown falls. Under such 
government the mass of the people are powerful in number, 
powerful in war when led by a skilled general, invincible 
when supporting the King, but powerless, helpless and im- 
potent in any effort to direct themselves. They are a force 
when led, but they cannot organize and lead themselves. 
They may struggle for freedom, but they struggle less 
against their leaders, for whom they are willing to die, than 
they do against their own ignorance, incompetency, and lack 
of power to act together. The history of the world shows 
the power of organization. 



ORGANIZATION 99 

Government is an organization. Its power is in its or- 
ganization, and those who are the organizers have the power 
and are the government. The struggle for liberty is simply 
a struggle on the part of the people to get into the organiza- 
tion of the government. The people have not struggled 
against their leaders more than the leaders have struggled 
for the people. The people have not struggled against their 
leaders more than they have struggled against them- 
selves. The people unorganized are a helpless mass of hu- 
manity, a voice in the wilderness. They are waiting for a 
leader to come to drive them to freedom. 

We may now turn the question, Shall the people rule? 
into the question, How can the people rule? We say by or- 
ganization. How shall the people organize themselves ? 
How can they do it? This is the essential question that we 
are considering. If as Mr. Sherman said, "The people do 
rule/' they do it through their political parties. But we have 
the testimony of our greatest patriots, our greatest officers, 
that the people do not rule, and that party government is a 
farce and a failure. ■ 

The rulers have not been placed over the people except 
as the people have placed them there. The Declaration of 
Independence says governments derive their authority from 
the consent of the governed. A despot could not govern a 
moment without the consent of those governed. We may 
say the mass of the people have never been held in subjec- 
tion by a ruler. They have been slaves by their ignorance of 
their powers and their ability to organize themselves to exer- 
cise their power. 

The Russians cannot organize themselves ; their strug- 
gle is less against the Czar than it is against the lack of or- 
ganization; and the Czar struggles because the government 
and the people are not properly organized. 



ioo THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

The American Colonists organized themselves in town 
meetings, but the Constitution failed to provide means for 
the organization of the people under the new government. 
This was the great mistake. Parties have sprung up to gov- 
ern the people. What is the result? The people are organ- 
ized as parties. They should be organized as the people, as 
the government. The people so organized would be the true 
child of democratic government. 

"Shall the people rule" is simply the question "Shall the 
people be organized in their own interests, shall they be or- 
ganized so they can rule ?" Surely then they will rule. 

The town caucuses are the best means of organizing the 
party. So the town meetings of all the people would be the 
best, the only means of organizing the people to govern 
themselves. Such an organization is what the framers of 
the government overlooked. 

We have found it necessary. Let us make provisions 
for it now. Now is the time for all men to come to the 
funeral of their party. God rules, and the people shall be 
organized. 

If parties are necessary for the people to act in the elec- 
tion, they are just as necessary for the people when making 
nominations. If it is necessary to have parties for the ex- 
pression of principles, it is more necessary to have parties of 
some kind to choose men, for the variety of men is greater 
than that of principles. 

We say the people do not govern themselves. They take 
their choice between two men picked out by the bosses. You 
may say the members of the party cannot manage the party. 
The party acts through its organization. The people are 
helpless in the grasp of the party organization. The people 
of Russia can be free. Yes, they could be if they could or- 
ganize themselves, but the government is the organization 
that now controls them. 



ORGANIZATION 101 

You may say the people are organized, that they can act 
through their party. No, they cannot act. People can act 
only when acting together. Each individual acting at ran- 
dom is not the people acting, no more than the pile of unor- 
ganized atoms are a marble palace. We can be kept isolated. 
We can be governed by our consent. Keeping the people 
isolated is the secret of despotic government. The individual 
life is nothing, a mere atom. It is only when each little part 
is made into a machine that the parts count. 

We tell the members of the party to act together, to 
secure what they want through their party ; and when it 
comes time to vote at the primary, we tell them to go to the 
polls, one by one, not talk with one another, each one express 
his wish, for he is a free man. The politicians meet and per- 
fect their plans. The people must be able to overcome the 
schemes of the politicians without meeting. The politicians 
agree by acting together. The people must agree without 
acting together. The politicians do what is natural. The 
people are asked to do what is impossible. The people must 
overcome the laws of nature, and, therefore, they fail. Any 
government that requires them to do what is impossible is a 
failure. For voters to go to a caucus, when they cannot 
express themselves and vote for delegates, is like driving the 
innocent calf by the slaughter house before he is led to his 
death, and the more a man thinks of what he does and has 
done when he goes to the caucus, the more he feels like the 
innocent calf. 

To ask the people to agree without personal consulta- 
tion, to vote at the caucus without talking over candidates, is 
to ask them to be mindreaders, to know what other people 
are thinking about at a distance. As well might we throw a 
dipper of water into the sea and expect to dip up the same 
water again. We might as well take the raw materials of 
which an automobile is made, heap them up in a pile, sit upon 



102 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

the pile and expect to ride. It is only when the parts of an 
automobile are assembled that it becomes the horseless car- 
riage and it seems to possess life. It is only when the people 
are assembled so they can act together, that they possess 
political life. Acting independently of one another, the 
people are but screws, bolts, parts of the machine ; assembled, 
they are the machine in action. 

It does not matter how much the people are educated. 
Fifty college presidents could not agree on any proposition 
of government without consulting among themselves. They 
could not elect a presiding officer without consulting among 
themselves, or taking an informal ballot. They would not try 
to do it. 

Our primary law recognizes the politicians but not the 
people. It recognizes the politicians and puts the people into 
their hands. It enables the politicians to act, and then does 
not permit the people to act, but makes them accept the acts 
of the politicians. It makes the politicians the government 
and makes the people obey. That is all they do in Russia. 

Government by Caucus. 

As soon as the government was started, it was found 
that it was necessary to nominate candidates for the people, 
the government had made no provision for this important 
work. Those in office were the ones naturally who would be 
interested and who would take steps to have candidates 
picked out. They would consult among themselves and pick 
out themselves and their friends. This getting together on 
the part of the officers was called holding a caucus. The 
members of Congress held a caucus to nominate a candidate 
for President. The members of the State legislature held a 
caucus to choose a United States Senator. The officers at the 
National capital held a caucus for National offices. The offi- 
cers at the State capital held a caucus for State offices, and 



ORGANIZATION 103 

the people interested in the towns held town caucus for 
town offices. This caucus was the parliamentary assembly of 
the people interested. When the people were aroused by 
some public question, the town caucus would be well at- 
tended, but usually they were not well attended for many of 
the people were not interested, there being nothing for them 
to do. 

The substitution of the convention for the caucus 
tended the authority of the rulers of the party from the little 
group of officers at the capital to the politicians of the whole 
country, or rather the participation of the politicians of the 
country made the convention necessary in place of the can 
The convention is the caucus of the delegates chosen by the 
primary caucus. 

The people who participate must come together in a 
caucus to choose delegates, and the ca the natural way 

by which the people must act. Political action is co-operative 
action, and therefore requires co-operation of the actors, and 
they can co-operate only by meeting face to face, mind to 
mind, thought to thought. The parliamentary assembly of 
the people is government by caucus of the people. 

John Adams wrote in 1814: 

"They have invented a balance to all balances in their 
caucus. We have congressional caucuses, state caucuses. 
county cat: ity caucuses, district caucuses, town cau- 

cuses, parish caucuses, and Sunday caucuses at church doors : 
and in these aristocratic caucuses elections have been de- 
cided." 

Caucus, day and night, winter and summer. We get our 
political education by talking and reading. We form our 
opinions and learn the opinions of others by talking and read- 
ing. The newspapers, speeches and meetings or caucuses are 
the means by which we know what others think. M 
talking animal. We invented speech to express our thoughts. 



104 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Now we make ourselves dumb, let the politicians talk for us, 
let them hold their caucuses and tell us what we want. Then 
we go like monkeys and put our ballots into the box, just as 
they do. 

It is at the caucus that the candidates are decided upon, 
there platforms are written, there the laws are initiated, there 
elections decided. The caucus is the field for the activity of 
the town and neighborhood, the convention is the field for the 
activity of the county, state and nation. The few can meet 
face to face, the many can send delegates. 

Consultation is the basis of our opinions and desires. 
Without consultation, we could not agree on any proposition. 
The people's work must be done in the caucuses, for after 
that it is delegated work. 

The "caucus" buds were set in the epidermis of the 
tree of state by private enterprise and have borne political 
parties with all their bitter fruit. When the "parliamentary 
assembly" buds shall be inserted by the law of the land into 
the governmental tree, we shall pick the golden fruit of pop- 
ular rule. 



NECESSITY OF PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT 

The Tethered Cow 



105 



tts^ 




The People are that Cow, the grass is the reward 
of industry, the stake is the government, the rope is 
1 "organization." The Elephant and the Mule are the 
politicians of the parties that are eating up our substance, 
and the flies biting at the cow's back are the pangs of 
conscience that goad us for our stupidity. The method 
of winding the rope of party organization around the stake 
has been the method of the party convention ; the last 
step before the cow is wound tight to the stake, is ' 'direct 
nominations" under party "committees" — that is the last 
lash to be applied to her back before the butcher hurls 
the hammer into the soft spot between her eyes and has 
her drawn and quartered. 

Let the cow retrace her steps, unwind the rope of 
"party organization," and eat the fruits of the soil to the 
dismay of the Donkey and Elephant. The Parliamentary 
Assembly will unwind the rope. 



io6 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER X. 

NECESSITY OF PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT. 
The Testimony. 

We have the testimony of presidents, governors and 
other high officers, that parties are necessary to our govern- 
ment, that they are necessary to enable the people to act. I 
give some quotations from our great public leaders. 

President Taft, in speaking of Mr. Cleveland, said: 

"Mr. Cleveland was a Democrat. He was a partisan. 
He believed in parties, as all men must who understand the 
machinery essential to the success and efficiency of popular 
government/' 

United States Senator Root said: 

"I have no sympathy, and perhaps too little patience 
with those who think, or think they think, that a republican 
government can be continued and administered without 
party organization. Organization will always overcome dis- 
organization." 

Prof. Lowell, of Harvard University, said: 

"The framers of the Constitution did not foresee the 
role that party was to play in popular government and they 
made no provision for it in their plan. National party or- 
ganizations were a necessary consequence of the virtual 
election of the President by a popular vote throughout the 
nation. In some form they must exist in any country for 
the nomination of officers who are chosen by a large elec- 
torate." 

Governor Hughes said : 

"Now, it is futile and undesirable to attempt to destroy 
parties. It is inevitable that parties will continue, and party 
organization is essential. Those who in attempting to per- 
fect any system which has such a close relation to the public 
welfare as the method of party nominations, ignore the neces- 



NECESSITY OF PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT 107 

sity and continuance of party organization, and like : 
ostrich bury their heads in the sand." 

Mr. Chanler, candidate for governor against Mr. 
Hughes, said : 

"Ours is a government of party, rather than of men." 
Thi> is strong testimony and would tend to make me 
hesitate in my attempt to destroy parties, by argument, if I 
did not know that the truth is on the side of the people when 
they truly express themselves, that the voice of the people 
is the voice of God. 

The Flat Earth. 

I could give quotations from the great leaders of the 
people in the thirteenth century showing that the earth was 
necessarily flat. At that time, anyone would have been pre- 
sumptuous to say that the earth is round. That it is flat was 
self-evident, for could not the people see that it is flat? Can't 
we see that parties are necessary? It is only a fool that 
thinks we can get along without a party. As Senator Root 
says, "Xobody thinks so, they think they think so." In the 
thirteenth century, people were born into a flat world, they 
lived in a world they could see was flat, and they died out of 
the flat world. Senator Root and all the other great men are 
born into parties, they live in parties and do not see how thev 
can live out of parties any more than they can see how a fish 
can live out of water, and they die out of the parties. That 
is the only way they can get out. 

But the world does move. Although it did seem flat, it 
was found to be round, and the remarkable thing to us now 
is that the heads of the people were so flat that they did not 
find it out long before they did, and when parties are utterly 
destroyed, we will look back in something more than wonder 
at the great minds that considered parties necessary. But we 
get our opinions from the point on which we stand. In a 



108 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

yellow light, all things look yellow. One born on the plain, 
has no vision of mountains. The child of the desert never 
dreams of the sea. A natural born politician without a party, 
is a man without a country. So in a certain sense parties are 
necessary. They are necessary for us until we see behind the 
veil that has been drawn over our faces. We but need to 
ascend the hill, to see the valley on the other side. 

The Class Struggle, 

There must be parties for there always have been par- 
ties. Likewise with fools. There have always been two 
classes — those ruling and those ruled — the strong and the 
weak — the master and the slave — those who have and those 
who want — those who have the power of government in 
their hands to use and those over whom such power is used — 
those whom some say God is pleased to make rulers and 
those whom He has made to be ruled, the common people. 
Lincoln said that God must have loved the common people 
or he would not have made so many of them. There is one 
class that believes that government is exterior to man, is over 
man, is to restrain man and to hold him in subjection. There 
is another class that believes that government is made by 
man, is under man, is tp enable man to be free. One believes 
that man is to endure government; the other, that he is to 
enjoy it. 

Life is a contest, a struggle in which the strong survive 
and the weak perish. Government is simply one of the 
tools or instruments that the strong man uses over his 
weaker brother. The cold rule of nature has been stated, 
"Can I kill you or can you kill me?" This is the rule of 
nature that has come down to men from the brutes. Ac- 
cording to Darwin a man is a descendant of the brute crea- 
tion and he has taken this rule with him. 



NECESSITY OF PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT 109 

There is a hope in the hearts of some that at some time 
there will be in the hearts of all this rule, "Can I help you 
or must I let you help me?" 

The stage of development called savagery says, "Kill 
the man that stands in the way of what you want." Barbar- 
ism says, "Make the man who can help you your slave/' 
Civilization says, "Get the consent of men to govern them, 
and they will be as helpless as if they were dead and as use- 
ful to you as if they were slaves/' There has always been 
some power to make one man obey another. Sometimes 
it has been "god" and sometimes, "government". The mo- 
tive for obedience has been fear, fear of "god" through 
ignorance, fear of "government" through necessity. Yes, 
the people are afraid. These mysterious "parties" are the 
divinities that they must not offend. The people know that 
they are not getting what they deserve, and that the power 
to get what they deserve and what they want, is in their 
hands ; but through reverence to party their hands are tied. 
The black cloud of party hangs over them and they fear 
the storm, but the only possible storm is one that the poli- 
ticians can brew out of the passion of the people. Let the 
people refuse to be stormed, let them say the sun of popular 
rule shall shine, and all the clouds will be dispelled. The 
political sea may be lashed into fury by the masters of the 
deep, but the calm of the people's will, will soon quiet the 
waves and leave a placid surface under the sunny skies. 
There wilj be no night, no fear then. 

The Government Struggle. 

We govern as we fight. The human race has fought 
with different tools and governed under different systems. 
We used to decide questions by force, and we governed by 
force. Later in our development, we decided questions by 
opinion, and we governed by opinion. When we ruled by 
force, we ruled with the club and the stone, with the arrow 



no THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

and the bow, with the sword and the bullet. Each new in- 
strument illustrates a step in our development, a step for- 
ward in fighting. As we advanced we used more force, but 
it was more invisible. Instead of taking a rough stone in 
our bare hand and crushing it into our enemy's skull, we 
put the bullet with our gloved hand into the steel tube and 
with a slight motion of the finger, sent the metal crashing 
into our enemy's brain. The force is less in evidence, but 
it is more effective. There is a step in government higher 
than the bullet, and that is the ballot. We govern first by 
force, then by cunning which we call consent. The club is 
seen, the bullets are felt, the ballots are counted. Those who 
used the club were the rulers, and clubs were necessary. 
The man behind the gun was the master and guns were 
necessary, and now we, who have the ballot, shall rule — 
when parties are destroyed. 

Are parties necessary? Can we vote without them? 
Our voting does no good with them, and if we cannot vote 
without them, we best not vote at all. Instead of being a 
means to help us express our opinions, they are a new device 
in the hands of those who would be our masters to prevent 
us from expressing our opinions. The club, the bow and 
the gun were clumsy devices. The political party is the new 
machine that has come to take their place. Were clubs neces- 
sary ? Yes, to those who needed to be clubbed. Were bows 
and arrows necessary? Yes, to those who needed to have 
their hearts pierced with the flint. Were guns necessary? 
Yes, to those who were better dead than alive. Are political 
parties or machines necessary? Yes, to those who cannot 
govern or do not want to govern themselves. Shall the 
people rule ? Can they rule ? Do they want to rule ? We 
shall outgrow political parties as we have outgrown the use 
of the other tools of savagery and barbarism. The race is 
progressing from bondage to freedom. With each step in 



NECESSITY OF PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT in 

our progress, we eliminate some useless device, and the la- 
device to be cast away is the political party. 

"There Will Always be Two Parties." 

Parties are not necessary, organization is what is neces- 
sary. Parties are the only organizations we have to enable 
the people to express themselves, therefore they are neces- 
sary until some other organization is provided for the peo- 
ple. These organizations have come because we have failed 
to organize ourselves under the government. The organiza- 
tion of the people in their parliamentary assemblies will 
leave parties with no foundation. 

Parties are national organizations. They are for the pur- 
pose of choosing the President. Local elections go with 
the national election. Parties in states, counties and towns 
are drawn on national lines. The contest for town collector 
is determined by the belief of the people on national ques- 
tions. Because we want our party to choose the President 
we are willing to vote for all the demons that can be put 
on our ticket. Party is a spell that is cast over us. We are 
under its influence, under the influence of those who control 
the party. 

In the fifteenth century there was a thirty-year war in 
England called "The War of the Roses." It was a contest 
between two royal families, each claiming to be the true Eng- 
lish nobility. The people of England took sides with these 
pretending rulers and killed one another by the thousand, to 
establish the rule of one of these despots over them. The 
members of one of the sides wore white roses, and the mem- 
bers of the other side wore red roses. We may say that we 
have a war of the elephant and the mule, and there is just 
as much sense in the people of America dividing themselves 
into two parties, one under the emblem of the Elephant and 
the other under the insignia of the Mule, to decide which 



U2 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

party leader should rule them, as there was for the people 
of England to kill one another to decide whether the wearer 
of the white rose or red rose should be their King. There 
would be as much sense in letting a donkey and an elephant 
go out and fight to decide what policy of government we 
should adopt as there is in having a contest between these 
two parties for that purpose. 

What is the Difference? 

Does it make any difference what party is in power ? In 
times past it has made a difference. Our Civil War was cer- 
tainly the result of party spirit and party prejudice. Some- 
times the end justifies the means. That is always the rule 
with the politicians and their party. If they want something 
they strive to get it, and whatever means are necessary to 
get it, they employ. The politicians who upheld slavery 
thought it necessary to take their states out of the Union to 
preserve slavery. If that end was desirable, rebellion was 
the means to the end. They would have rebelled for some 
other reason. In 1832, the politicians of Massachusetts 
threatened to secede from the Union on account of the 
tariff laws. The Civil War, we see then, was but a means 
to accomplish a desired end, and the means that no one but 
a party leader would employ. There is no difference in the 
two great parties now, no difference that an ordinary 
observer can see. There is a difference between the two old 
parties and the party that ought to be. 

As we look back on the ruins of ancient nations, we may 
wonder whether they had parties. Were there two parties 
in Egypt six thousand years ago, if so, what was the dif- 
ference? There are by nature two parties — one that wants 
to let the people rule and one that wants to rule the people. 
We know there were two such parties in old Egypt. The 
pyramids are the monuments erected by the Egyptian Kings 



NECESSITY OF PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT 113 

and show the absolute power of the rulers over the people. 
The great pyramid, it is estimated, required nine hundred 
million days' work. Is there any monarch who could tax his 
people to that extent to build a tomb for him? All the 
public buildings in the United States did not cost as much 
as that. Can there be any question but that the rulers of 
Egypt believed that the people should be ruled, and that 
parties were "necessary" ? 

Are parties necessary? What are they necessary for? 
We have town meetings at which the people discuss their 
local affairs. Are parties necessary there? If it is proposed to 
lay out a new road in a town, must there be two parties 
to decide it ? If a new school house is to be built, must it be 
presented to the people by two parties, and if the tariff is to 
be revised, must there be two parties to take sides on it? 
Clearly not. 

The American Colonists for many years, governed them- 
selves in their town meetings without parties. They adopted 
the Declaration of Independence, planned and executed the 
Revolutionary War without parties, and this was one of the 
greatest pieces of work ever performed by man. Why were 
not parties necessary then? Because the people could rule. 

American institutions are a growth. They are a growth 
out of conditions that have long existed. "The roots of the 
present lie deep in the past." Our town meetings we can 
trace back two thousand years. The written national consti- 
tution had its forerunner in the compact drawn up by the 
Plymouth fathers in 1620. 

Our government is a tree, and it has some new shoots 
grafted onto it. The most conspicuous branch of the tree 
now is the political party. That is a branch of comparatively 
recent growth, but like the other branches, it has been a nec- 
essary growth on account of the care given to the tree. 



H4 



THE WASHINGTON PARTY 



'Parties are Necessary" 




The Donkey: "Shall the People Rule?" 

The Elephant: "They Do Rule." 

The People : "A Horse, a Horse, the Republic for a Horse.' ' 

All (together): "It is Necessary." 



The Elephant now goes round, goes round, 

The band begins to play ; 

The God of Party rules the road, 

Let all the People pay. 



NECESSITY OF PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT 115 

Parties are necessary. What for? 

To nominate candidates for the people to vote for. 
Without parties candidates could not be brought out. When 
the people go to the polls they would have no one to vote for. 

What is a party? An organization. A party consists of 
a number of people scattered through the country having 
similar opinions or desires. They act as an organization. 
They have committees and leaders. The members of the 
party may act directly or the leaders or committees of the 
party may act. 

Mr. Hughes says parties are nece-sary. The proposed 
direct nominations law provides for the suggestion of can- 
didates by the committee of the party. Then the voters may 
approve such choice. Is such a committee or similar body 
necessary? Yes, as nuich as a party is necessary. The 
essential thing about the party is the organization, the 
power to act, to make or suggest nominations. 

The people as units cannot act at all without being 
organized. They mupt be formed into groups having com- 
mon desires. Some authority must pick out a name that a 
majority of the part*' or a good number of the party can 
agree on. 

Now, suppose tjie members of the party do not like the 
choice the committer makes. What can they do? Ah. then 
they can act without organization, then party is not neces- 
sary, then they act jjy magic. Then we see the political mira- 
cle. Then some nJe member of the party steps forth with 
a petition on whMi is written the name of a man that the 
members of the p>rty want. He rushes over the state and 
they sign the petition, and then at the primary they vote for 
the man of their choice. Is it not wonderful? They must 
have parties under ordinary circumstances. They must have 



n6 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

a committee or similar organization to suggest a candidate, 
but if the committee does not suggest a suitable candidate, 
the candidate that the voters want, then somebody knows 
whom they want and starts the petition. Why could not this 
wise man start his petition without waiting for the commit- 
tee to propose the wrong candidate? The argument for the 
necessity of parties is strong. And every reason for the 
necessity of some kind of party organization shows how 
foolish it is to propose to have the people name candidates by 
petition. When they can name a candidate by petition then 
there is no use of parties ; if there is any need of parties, then 
the members of the party cannot name candidates by petition. 
If the members of the Republican party can agree on a candi- 
date by petition, then the members of any party can do the 
same, and the people of the state can do the same, and there 
will be no need of parties, no need even of an election; let 
the people simply agree on their candidate. No parties and 
no election will be necessary. This is a great discovery. 

The suggestion of the committee will be the end of the 
matter, and it will be foolish monkey imitation work to have 
the voters of the party go to the polls to approve the choice 
or suggestion of the committee. If the members of the party 
cannot meet in parliamentary assemblies, then they must 
have some committee or convention to meet for them, and 
the decision of this body will be their decision. They cannot 
suggest anybody to take the place of the candidate suggested 
by the committee or they would not need the committee to 
suggest at all. 

The central and plain fact is that organization is nec- 
essary to activity on the part of the people. Without organ- 
ization they simply cannot act. The organization may be a 
committee of one man from each county or other district. 



NECESSITY OF PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT 117 

These men can get together and deliberate for all the people. 
A few men from different parts of the state may meet and 
deliberate for the people and make a suitable choice for 
public office. Yet, it is not necessary that they know what 
the people want, for they may not "want" anybody, but this 
body of men — the committee — must be able to pick out some 
suitable man. It does not matter so much who he is as long 
as he will be a suitable officer. If these men who make the 
choice come from different parts of the state they may be 
said to represent the people of the state. If we should pick 
out an intelligent man from each assembly district in the 
state, and have them meet to pick out a governor, they prob- 
ably would pick out as good a man as we have ever had for 
this office, and why should they not be able to do so? The 
selection of a man for office is not so great a task after all. 
What does the ordinary citizen know about who will make 
a good governor? Who knows what the mass of peopk 
want? How can anybody know unless the people have a 
chance to express themselves in parliamentary assemblies? 
If the voters go to the polls and approve the choice of a 
committee, that is not expressing themselves at all. 

Nomination by petition is the most ridiculous proposi- 
tion ever submitted to the consideration of the intelligence 
of the people. They must petition without an organization, 
but they must petition because an organization is necessary ! 
They must pick out a candidate without having an organiza- 
tion, because the people cannot pick out a candidate without 
an organization! What nonsense. "If I had some ham I 
would cook some ham and eggs, if I had some eggs." 

The people must agree on a candidate at the primary 
without an organization because they cannot agree on a can- 
didate at the election without an organization ! 

Principles are more important than men. There would 
be no excuse for a party existing merely for the selection of 



Il8 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

any man for office. Parties ckme into being to represent 
principles, and, of course, they nad to have men to stand for 
the principles. The direct nomination of candidates is of lit- 
tle account to the members of the party. The success of the 
party is the only thing that i3 of account. Of course, the 
people want honest men in officfe, but we naturally expect to 
have honest men in office. Wh£n we pick out men to repre- 
sent us, we will pick out good frien. If they carry out our 
principles they will be good men. The Republicans were not 
much concerned whether their Candidate for President was 
to be Taft or some other man. One hundred men might have 
been picked out who would have suited them just as well as 
Taft. If the question had been left to the members of the 
party and they had no way of comparing opinions, of meet- 
ing to exchange opinions, they would not have agreed on a 
candidate by this time. But Mr. Hughes does not propose to 
let us have anything to say about "direct" action on candi- 
dates for President, nor for local ofikers, only for state and 
county officers. 

The people should have a chance to express themselves 
"directly" on principles and let the matter of candidates be 
decided by committees who can attend to that little detail 
better than can the mass of the people. It is foolish to have 
parties to pick out officers. If they are not to represent prin- 
ciples they are useless altogether. 

We must have a party to make nominations, but we 
must make nominations without a party. 

We must have a party committee to suggest a name to 
us, but if this name is not the name we want we must suggest 
one ourselves. "We" do not know what "we" want, and 
that is why "we" have a committee to make the suggestion 
which "we" must accept because "we" cannot tell what "we" 
want. If we can tell what we want then we don't need the 
committee, and if we cannot tell what we want then we must 
go by the action of the committee. 



THE REMEDY 

The Wagon of State 



ii 9 




The wagon without the "team" is the government 
as established. 

The people have hitched a stray Elephant and a 
Mule to the wagon in the hope that they would draw 
it to the Temple of Salvation ; but the Elephant wants 
to eat all the time and the Mule is balky. 

The perfect Automobile is the government as it shall 
be established by the organization of the people into 
parliamentary assemblies, into true democratic bodies of 
self-governing units of government. 

The People shall Ride and Rule ! 



120 THE WASHINGTON PARW 

CHAPTER XL 

THE REMEDY. 

Election of Principles rather than election of Men to repre- 
sent principles. 

Carrying out the general theory of party government, 
let us have election of principles rather than election of men. 
The men may be chosen by the people or by representatives 
selected by the people, but principles shall be adopted by the 
votes of the people, cast directly for the principles. It is not 
possible for the people to express their choice for men 
because there are so many men that are available for each 
office, and it would be imposisble for the people to agree 
in sufficient numbers on any one man. They can only agree 
on one of two or three men when these two or three men are 
picked out for them by parties or other agencies. The atten- 
tion of the people must be focussed to a few men. But it is 
possible for the people to express their choice of principles, 
no matter how many principles may be in the public mind for 
consideration. There will never be a great many principles 
up for public discussion at the same time, but there would 
be an indefinite number of candidates if each voter was to 
pick out his own candidate as he picks out his own princi- 
ples. If every voter should write out his opinion on all the 
political questions that he considers, all the opinions of all 
the people could be classified under a few general headings, 
and by arithmetical calculation, we could arrive at a definite 
conclusion as to what the people want on any particular 
question, but if the voters of any city express their individ- 
ual choice for mayor, it is probable that no man would receive 
a decent percentage of the votes, unless a few candidates 
were brought to the attention of the people and the votes of 
the people restricted to those candidates. 



THE REMEDY 121 

In the early development of representative government, 
ft was necessary to elect men to represent the people, for the 
people could not express themselves. The people could not 
read or write, there were no newspapers, education was lim- 
ited to the few. The people could not express themselves 
intelligently. As they became educated and intelligent 
enough to have opinions, the opinions could not be expressed. 
How could the principles of the people be ascertained? 
Only by letting the representatives of the people, who would 
be acquainted with the people of each community, meet 
together and discuss what the people wanted. It was a sys- 
tem of passing opinions along from one to the other, hand 
to hand. How were the representatives to know what the 
people wanted? By talking with them, by attending their 
town meetings and taking test votes on public questions. 
This method is illustrated in the ancient tun meetings of the 
Anglo-Saxons, by the vestry meetings in early England and 
by the town meetings in the American Colonies, preceding 
and during the Revolutionary War. In early times, the 
representatives took pains to find out what was wanted. 
When the people did not express themselves, the represen- 
tatives used their own judgment as to what was best for 
the people and represented them in that way. 

Public education has come to be general. There are 
newspapers in plenty, we may all know what is being done 
the world over. We can read and write and take examina- 
tions. The public schools of America teach us a wonderful 
lesson. We find little children going to school, writing their 
compositions and expressing their opinions on everything 
under the sun. What these children can do, their parents 
ought to be able to do. It seems as if the people were about 
to come out from under a cloud of ignorance, it seems as if 
they were held back by a rope of straw. The rising sun dis- 
pels the mists. The sun of liberty has given us the desire for 



122 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

self-government and the light of education is giving us the 
means of self-government. 

But how simple is the plan, it is so simple that it is mar- 
velous that it has not been in use for the last one hundred 
years. A great cry goes up "Shall the people rule, shall the 
people have what they want"? From the oratory of the 
political speakers, we think of the people as being crushed 
down by despots against whom they are forever struggling 
and the orators are the saviours who are come to lead the 
people out of their house of bonadge. It seems to be a diffi- 
cult task to find out what the people want and to find men to 
give them what they want when they know it. 

Now, what could be more natural than to let the people 
say what they want. If we were grown infants incapable 
of action, then the ado made over us at election time would 
seem reasonable, but when our children can express them- 
selves in their schools, cannot we express ourselves in our 
town meetings, our political schools, our political primary 
assemblies? Let the people choose representatives, but 
instead of the representatives being obliged to talk with the 
people or guess what they want, let them listen to the voice 
of the people as expressed in the town meetings or elections, 
where they can vote for principles without being obliged to 
vote for men who they think represent their political prin- 
ciples but who they may think ought to be in jail on gen- 
eral principles. 

If the people are not competent to express wise opinions 
on laws or measures, are they not competent to decide who 
are the best men to express such opinions? If the voters of 
any town are not able to understand the tariff, are they not 
able to decide who are the best men in the town to pick out 
to help decide it? If they are not intelligent enough to deal 
with public questions, they are at least intelligent enough to 
know who of their neighbors are competent. If the people 



THE REMEDY 123 

choose the men in whom they have most confidence to speak 
for them, are they not doing as much as they can do in the 
way of self-government? That is the true principle on 
which representative democracy is based. Are parties at all 
necessary to enable the people to pick out these men ? Are 
they not rather a hindrance? 

If the people are able to form opinions on public ques- 
tions, they can express such opinions by means of a ballot for 
principles. It is not necessary to have political organizations 
to represent the people. If there is to be anything "direct" 
in elections, it should be the direct expression of the opinion 
of the people, if they have opinions to express. We may 
argue as to the ability of the people to make laws for them- 
selves. There is one way to find out, and that is to put the 
power into their hands, and by their exercise of this power 
we shall know. If we enable the people to choose their best 
men and enable the people to express their choice of princi- 
ples, we have given them the chance to rule, but nothing 
short of this will satisfy their demands. There is no use 
of letting democracy perish for want of a thorough trial, and 
it is not fair to say that democratic government is a failure 
until it has been given this trial. And this brings us to the 
question again, Shall the people rule, or shall they have a 
chance to rule? While the parties live the people cannot 
rule, and the question whether the people shall rule, becomes 
the question, "Shall the parties be destroyed"? 

Organization. 

How does it happen that there are these designing politi- 
cians who are able to hold the people in their grasp ? How 
do bosses come to be? How do they organize themselves 
for their powerful action? The word "organization" is the 
key to the question. Organization is what makes them. 
Without such organizations they are as children, and with 



124 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

such organizations the people are but children at the entrance 
to the lion's den. How do these organizations come to be? 
"Caucus" is the key word. Those who are interested in the 
actual working of the government, those who want office 
and those who can graft on the tree of State, caucus. They 
talk over offices, they get together, they prepare plans and 
execute their plans. Throughout the country those little 
caucuses are held in saloons and in private offices and in 
public offices. When there is an officer to be chosen, when 
there is a public contract to be let, when there is public 
money to be spent, then there is a caucus on the part of those 
who have the handling of the money and those who want to 
get it. Favoritism and interest cement them into an organ- 
ization. They form a solid mass. All find their proper level. 
These caucuses are held whenever opportunity makes it 
desirable. They are natural, they will always be, and to try 
to remedy the evil by strengthening party organization by 
law, by making the people work through party organization, 
is like trying to put out a fire by pouring oil on the flame. 

The Lever. 

We say put the government into the hands of the people, 
put it into the hands of all of the people. All hands cannot 
lift alike. Some will lift a little, some will just touch the 
load, some will pull backward, but some will be giants. All 
can lift and we will get the strength of the people back of 
our movement. Can all lift now ? No, the party managers 
can lift. The trusts have the party lever in their hands and 
they can lift better than all. Party is the lever ; the people, 
the fulcrum. Industry is the load, and the "Captains of 
Industry" apply the force. See how easy the trusts lift the 
load. Yes, see the backs of the people on which the load is 
carried. The lever is necessary if the trusts are to lift the 
bag of the fruits of industry. If the lever is thrown away, 



THE REMEDY 125 

then the trusts will have to lift with their hands along with 
the people. Shall the people rule with their own hands, or 
shall their backs be the support of the party lever by which 
the trusts hold up the rewards of labor? 

Initiative. 

The initiative is a system of voting by ballot at elections 
adopted by Switzerland and a few of the American States, 
in which the people have the privilege of indicating what 
laws they want enacted. That is they can initiate or start 
laws. How do they do it? How can a question be brought 
to the attention of the voters so that the mass of them can 
consider the same question at the same time? The political 
party is the only instrument yet devised to give expression 
to the will of the people, and it is the only means of getting 
the people to act together. A party may propose a question 
and the people may vote "Yes" or "No" on it. On what 
proposition shall the people express themselves ? On the 
proposition that some party sees fit to present to them. Sup- 
pose the Democratic party proposes the question of free 
coinage, the people can vote simply "Yes" or "No", They 
cannot in any way modify the question. If the party must 
first propose a question, the people simply have the chance of 
voting "Yes" or "No", but to truly initiate a proposition, the 
people must have more than a chance to merely vote "Yes" 
or "No", they must have a chance to frame up the question 
or proposition to suit themselves. The present condition of 
the initiative simply gives the people a choice of what some- 
body else has picked out for them. It does not give them a 
chance to make their choice first hand. The opinions of the 
people of any district can be collected and expressed only by 
their actually meeting face to face, by getting and giving 
views. In such a way the common opinion of the people can 
be arrived at. 



126 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

The sportsman must have something to shoot at. The 
voters under parties must have some principle brought up for 
discussion or they will not have anything to act on. They 
go to the polls one by one and express themselves on some 
question that somebody else has written. To truly express 
himself each voter would have to go into the booth and write 
out a composition on the questions of the day or the questions 
he had considered. Such statements would be of no value for 
it would be impossible to arrange or tabulate the scattered 
and poorly expressed opinions of the voters, but if they 
could actually- meet and decide to discuss certain questions, 
they co^^Secide on the questions and express their opinion 
at the same time, and the vote of the meeting would be an 
accurate record of what the people want. 

The Feast. 

There are two views of the organization of the govern- 
ment. When the government was founded, there were two 
points of view. There were what was called State men and 
National party men. These two views were the foundation 
of the two great political parties. That question was of no 
particular importance. If the people had been empowered 
with government that question would have been lost sight of, 
but the parties kept up the discussion. The slavery question 
came up, the same theory of State rights led to secession. 
The theory of the right of a State to secede and the desire 
to secede to save slavery, caused the war. The parties are 
responsible for keeping this issue alive. Parties divided the 
country into sections instead of uniting it. Under the 
organization of the people into parliamentary assemblies, the 
people would have grown into one mass. 

The government in Washington's time was not perfected. 
We should take the place that the people should have taken 
at that time. They did not see the necessity for the organiza- 



THE REMEDY 127 

tion of the people, for it did not exist. As the necessity 
grew, organization took the place that the people should 
have taken. 

We do not govern, we are governed by our consent. We 
are governed by a governing class, who are despotic because 
we are deceived into believing that we govern. We have 
progressed much in general, but not in government. We are 
just where we were in 1770. We have a new despot, instead 
of the King of England, we have the "Amen Corner", the 
Boss. We were governed then and we did not like it. We 
are governed now and we do like it. The yoke is easy when 
we put it on ourselves, a self-imposed burden is light. 

The Declaration says we are created to govern ourselves. 
Our stomachs were created to digest food. When we don't 
get anything to eat, we get hungry. When we don't govern 
ourselves, we get political parties. The political party is to 
the Nation what hunger is to the individual. Yes, the polit- 
ical party is the hunger of the State. The State is an organ- 
ism, it has a constitutional stomach, and its stomach has 
been empty, it is hungry. Our eyes have been feasted on the 
flag, our ears have been charmed with eloquence. Parades 
and promises we have had in plenty, but we have not been 
filled, we have been fooled. The eye has seen, but the hand 
has not touched nor the mouth tasted. The grapes grow 
high on the vines. The peaches are lemons. The honey is 
vinegar and sugar is gall. The bread of life is the ashes 
of disappointment. There is the "Emptiness of Ages" in our 
digestive system. The great Civil War was a colic, a stom- 
ach ache. Let us eat. Let the people gather around the 
table of the Parliamentary Assembly, let them have their 
feast of reason and flow of soul. Let them eat the bread of 
opportunity and drink the wine of participation. Yes, let 
them drink all of it. Let us spread the feast under our sacred 
trees, let us have a meeting of the towns, let the clans assem- 



128 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

ble. Let Lazarus come to the feast, and let the rich man take 
his turn at the crumbs. Let us sit at the head of the table. 
The Party Calf has grown so great that he must either devour 
or be devoured. The fire burns hot with the deceptions that 
have been heaped upon us. Let him be led forth to the 
slaughter. 

Self Preservation, 

The first law of nature is self preservation. Every living 
thing seeks to preserve itself, and unconsciously it will give 
its life in its effort to save itself. The same law applies to 
societies, of which government is one. The people as a gov- 
ernment are merely a society, a living organization. The 
people in the government act through officers, who exercise 
their powers during certain periods of time. So the organ- 
ization must be renewed from time to time. It must be per- 
petuated by the people. The government should prepare for 
that renewal of life. Its organization should provide a law 
by which the people can give it new life and keep it in force. 
The Constitution and laws made no provision for the people 
granting their powers to officers. Political parties have sup- 
plied this necessity. They have grown up as the mediator 
between the people and their government. The power of the 
people must pass from their own hands to the hands of the 
officers, and is passed by means of political parties. The elec- 
tion laws provide for this. Even last year the President pro- 
posed to Congress that the government pay the expense of 
running the parties. Politicians get into office and then pay 
their expenses out of the treasury. Let the people as the gov- 
ernment prove that the people can perpetuate the government 
without parties. The way to do this is through Direct Pri- 
mary Assemblies, held without regard to parties, to which all 
the citizens of a community will be eligible. 



THE REMEDY I29 

Local Self-government. 

The demand is often made in party platforms for local 
self-government. It is a popular demand. People do not 
like to feel that they are denied the right to govern them- 
selves in their local affairs. 

Why is this? The Anglo-Saxon race has been used to 
self-government for hundreds of years. Local self-govern- 
ment has been characteristic of English and American towns 
since the beginning of their history, and there will probably 
never be a time when the people will not manage their own 
local concerns. 

But the right to local self-government is no clearer than 
the right to national self-government. If the people have 
the right to govern themselves in town matters, is it not 
right that they should govern themselves in national matters? 

In the New England town meetings and also in Xew 
York State, the people decide a great many things, such as 
the laying out of new roads, building of bridge*, draining 
lands, how much money shall be voted for public improve- 
ments, whether intoxicating liquors shall be sold or not. In 
the school district in New York State, the people have their 
school meetings to decide on who the officers shall be, how 
much money shall be raised, the length of the term of school, 
and in fact all the details of the school. 

The value of self-government, or of letting the people 
themselves pass upon the laws, is frequently shown where 
questions are submitted to the people for their approval at 
general elections. For some time past the Board of Educa- 
tion of Rochester has been considering the proposition to 
furnish text books free to the pupils of the public schools. 
There was a committee of nine appointed by citizens of the 
city to investigate and report on this proposition. They held 
some public meetings and many private meetings, and after 
all the discussion they have come to the conclusion that they 



i 3 o THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

do not know whether to advise free text books or not, and 
in a resolution have asked that the question be submitted to 
the voters of the city at the next election. This shows that 
they have confidence in the people, that the judgment of the 
mass of the people is better to be relied upon than the judg- 
ment of a committee of nine. So far as the people possess 
the necessary information and experience is it not always 
better to rely on their judgment and wish rather than on the 
judgment of a few who are chosen to speak in their place? 
If this is to be a government of the people and for the peo- 
ple, it must be indeed by the people, not merely by their rep- 
resentatives, and not by the parties to which they belong, but 
by the people acting of themselves and for themselves, in 
free parliamentary assemblies, where they can meet face to 
face, ask their questions and have them answered. Actual 
discussion of public questions is the only way that the minds 
of the people can be trained to understand their questions 
and the only means by which the wishes of the people can be 
ascertained. 

In-so-far as the people are able to decide what is for 
their advantage, let them do so, and where they are not able 
to so decide, let them pick out representatives to choose for 

them. 

Party is a Private Affair. 

Party organization is something outside of the machin- 
ery of government proper. In the organization of the gov- 
ernment the people took no notice of party organizations or 
movements nor even contemplated them. They have sprung 
up from selfish purposes to take advantage of conditions 
arising under the people's necessity in managing the govern- 
ment. The laws left no way for the people to have their 
wishes expressed, and parties have come to help the people 
manage the government. The parties have helped too well, 
they manage it entirely — and manage it for themselves alone. 



THE REMEDY 131 

Parties are private affairs for private interests. "Public 
office is a public trust." Now, what business has a party with 
public office? Instead of making the people get into parties 
to choose officers and making them choose their officers out 
of parties, we should make it impossible for the parties to get 
possession of office. A man who is in a party should be 
looked upon as a man who wants to commit robbery, and is 
a criminal in embryo. 

Parties are private affairs for private interests, but the 
government is a public affair with public interests, and it is 
the business of the government to provide for the organiza- 
tion of the people into parliamentary assemblies so that they 
can express themselves and not leave them to organize them- 
selves into party bands to secure what they want under the 
laws of piracy. Party government is a government within 
the government, a wheel within a wheel. But the true gov- 
ernment is responsible to the people and regulated by the 
Constitution. Party organization is responsible only to the 
boss, to the organizer, to the interests that gave the party 
birth. It arrays one class against another class. Parties are 
necessarily classes. Class interests organize parties, parties 
secure control of the government, and then the government 
is run in the interests of the members of the party. The 
party is a foundling. It was left at the entrance of the tem- 
ple of government. It was taken in and fed on patronage 
and "infant industries," and on this diet it has grown to be 
a Samson ready to tear down the very pillars of the temple. 

Some say the Republican party came to settle the ques- 
tion of Negro slavery. That was settled. But after the set- 
tlement of that question, what did the party remain for ? It 
has been kept in power to feed the organization of politicians 
that have gathered into its fold to be fed. 

The Constitution is the fence around the orchard of gov- 
ernment privileges, opportunities, benefits and favors. All the 



132 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

good things the people want are in the orchard, and when 
they want anything they must organize a party band to break 
through the fence. The man who wants, but can find no den 
of robbers to join him, must sit by and see the others satisfy 
their wants. 

The kernel has been left out of the shell of government, 
and party is the fungus that has grown in its place. Organ- 
ization is the meat, the kernel that should have filled the 
shell of the Constitution. The American Eagle laid an egg 
with an empty shell, called the Constitution, and a serpent 
deposited his slimy brood, Party, within the void, and out 
of this have grown the copper-head of the rebellion, the 
blood-sucker of the tariff, and the hydra-headed octopus of 
the trusts. There is quite a vigorous brood to bruise our 
heels, unless we stamp them out at once. Parties must be 
destroyed. 

Outside the Gate. 

Officers are to be elected. The people are to vote for 
them. The laws prescribe the method by which the people 
vote. Laws recognize parties as placing candidates in nomi- 
nation, recognize the party as making the nominations. The 
people must be in parties to be considered. They must get 
into parties before they can be heard by the State. The 
State puts a premium upon parties. It goes into partnership 
with parties to govern the people. Parties take the place of 
royalty. The king is dead. Long live the party ! 

Pass a direct nomination law to the effect that the peo- 
ple must be in parties to get consideration at the hands of 
the State, so that government of the party, by the party, and 
for the party may not perish from the earth ! 

We ask that people have as much right as the parties. 
Give the people the same chance we give the party. Let 
the people have a parliamentary primary assembly in every 
town, pay their expenses, the same as we pay party expenses. 



THE REMEDY 133 

Let them nominate their candidates and also express their 
principles, and let those candidates be put on the official bal- 
lot. Let the people rule at least as much as the parties. 

There would have to be actual meetings of the people, 
for there would be no committees to pick out candidates for 
delegates. This beginning in our political activity is the all 
important thing. Let me pick out the candidates for dele- 
gates and I do not care who does the voting. If the parties 
are to represent the members of the parties, there must be 
parliamentary meetings of the members of the party and not 
mere primaries. When we vote by ballot it is necessary to 
have face to face discussions. 

Are not the people that do not belong to a party entitled 
to have a voice in their government? You must belong to 
the party to have a voice in your government. To be outside 
of some party is to be lost, to lose your right to vote. Get 
onto the Republican Elephant or the Democratic Mule if you 
want to ride into the city. 

The people must rule or be ruled. They can rule 
through direct parliamentary assemblies. They can be ruled 
through party committees, official ballots, direct nominations, 
etc. 

Wheels. 

There are two wheels to the political machine, one is the 
caucus, the other the convention. The caucus is the main 
wheel, it is to that the force is applied and transmitted by it 
to the other. There are two caucuses, one real and the other 
artificial, one for business the other for show ; one regulated 
by the politicians, the other by the State ; one for the partic- 
ipation of the politicians, the other for the deception of the 
people ; one for the grafters, one for reformers. 

The real caucus is the caucus of the politicians, not the 
caucus provided for by the State law. It is the caucus that 
gives force to the caucus provided by the State law. The 



134 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

primary or State caucus is deficient. It is the fire-box with- 
out the coal, and the politicians gladly supply the need. 
After the secret private caucus of the politicians, the primary 
is held under the law, and there the designs of the secret 
meetings are publicly approved and passed off as the voice of 
the members of the party. The worm that has spun its own 
thread around it under the protection of the primary will 
come forth as the beautiful butterfly to dazzle the eyes of the 
people. The worms of the secret caucus become the flies of 
the official primary, who in turn become the nominating com- 
mittee, and again turn into the worms from which they came. 
As soon as the committeemen are chosen they possess author- 
ity, they are a law to themselves. It is the force that chooses 
these men, that starts the wheel to moving and keeps up the 
motion of the machine. Under the newest plan proposed, 
the committeemen would be chosen by petition. It would 
simply be a worm's nest rebuilt by the worms. Out of the 
foulness of political corruption can we expect the clean bird 
of popular petition to arise ? Out of the mouths of babes we 
may get wisdom, but out of corrupt politics we shall not get 
pure government. The parties are well organized, their 
wheels fit to perfection. There are no broken cogs. From 
the secret caucus to the national convention, one cog fits into 
the other with the nicety of watch-work. The voice that is 
expressed by the national convention, is the voice that speaks 
at the secret caucuses. The President's cabinet meeting 
makes the decision, and the national convention registers it. 
The Peerless Leader on his Nebraska farm makes up his 
mind and the Denver convention proclaims it to the people. 
There are a great many messengers, and a good deal of pub- 
lic display necessary between the inception of the thought 
and its unfolding to the people, but it is all worked out by 
these two wheels, the caucus and the convention. It is the 
caucus that makes the convention. Those who are to be in 



THE REMEDY 135 

the convention are born at the caucus. The family of the 
politicians becomes the Royal Family of the State, and it is 
about as hard for a new politician to enter the ring without 
being baptized into the mysteries of the clan, as it is for one 
of the common people to enter royalty. 

Let us organize the people in the same manner that the 
parties are organized. Some organization is necessary, all 
our great statesmen say so. The people should have a m 
perfect organization than the parties. They must have a cau- 
cus and a convention, but their caucus instead of being secret 
and attended by the few, should be public and attende I by 
all. It should express the views of the people, not the voi 
of a few designers. It should be the nest of the American 
Eagle, not the nest of the Harpies. This caucus of the peo- 
ple must be actual, it must be a parliamentary assembly 
where the people meet. From this assembly would go out 
the true representatives of the people chosen for their ability, 
chosen to express the will of the people. Such an organiza- 
tion of caucus and convention would make an ideal party 
organization, and it will make an ideal organization for the 
people. And this is not at all new. It is new to our politics, 
but it was the plan used by the Ancient Saxons. Their meet- 
ing places were under their sacred tree. Let ours be in our 
school houses. They made the tree the temple of their gov- 
ernment. Let us make our little halls of learning the founda- 
tion stones of the Republic. The politicians have made their 
secret caucus the main wheel that operates the Constitution. 
Let us make popular assemblies the wheel that drives the 
power organized under the Constitution. 

The history of the world is said to be a history of the 
world's great men. Now, we think of these men because 
they were connected with certain events or because their per- 
sonality produced certain events. It is the personality of the 
man that rules, the personality of the people must rule. They 



136 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

rule not by numbers but by weight ; not by quantity, but by 
quality ; not how many, but how much. In the private cau- 
cus of the politicians, it is the man of native force that has 
his way, that plans the party campaign, that secures the 
results and uses them. In the parliamentary assemblies we 
would get an expression of the personalities of the people, 
the wise man would be wise, and the foolish would be silent. 
These men would appear in their true nature as giants and 
dwarfs, all would not be equal, they would be as they are. 
Their strength would be applied to the first and most import- 
ant wheel in the machinery of government. It may be that 
we have Washingtons, Jeffersons and Lincolns in our midst. 
We have had them and why not again ? It is only the emer- 
gency that calls out the ambulance, only the opportunity that 
calls out the statesmen and the general. If there is an oppor- 
tunity there will be found many men who have good ideas 
and good ability to use for the people. At these meetings 
of the people these abilities will have a chance to develop, the 
opportunity will be there, and if we have statesmen they will 
be employed in statesmanlike work. Their abilities will be 
used to formulate plans for the improvement of the people. 

Danger in Delay. 

Government by parties is a farce. We vote knowing it 
does not matter which side wins. We do not care. We say, 
What is the use ? We know government by parties is a farce, 
and we are waiting for something better to come along. As 
long as we think patries are farces and are some time to be 
gotten rid of as some disease, we are not in so great danger, 
we are governed by them through our consent but not 
through necessity. But when we take it seriously and say 
these parties are necessary, then it is time to take notice, then 
we do become slaves and are governed by necessity with no 
hope of escape. What we take as a wart on our backs, Gov- 



THE REMEDY 137 

ernor Hughes would make a necessary growth and deform 
us like the camel with its hump. 

By the prince of organizations we shall cast our organ- 
izations. Let us have an organization of all the people to 
take the place of the organizations of part of the people under 
the pirate flags or politicians. 

If we have a tumor and think it is an evil to be gotten rid 
of some time, we are safe if we do not wait too long. If we 
think the tumor is necessary, then we are lost ; but if we 
think the tumor is not necessary and can be removed by the 
surgeon's knife, we are saved at once. We should not 
tolerate our party evils, we should not say they are neces- 
sary, but we should have them removed by the keen edged 
knife of the parliamentary assembly. 

When the pretending heir usurps the power of the state 
the people are in danger. 

When the spirit of subserviency comes among us we are 
slaves. 

When we have a leader whom we let govern us, and 
we know he governs only because we are pleased to let him, 
we have the power in our own hands ; but when we have a 
leader who we think is necessary to govern us, then we 
have no voice, then we have the King. 

Establishing the NECESSITY of the exercise of power 
is the establishment of royalty. Kings began to rule because 
the people wanted them to rule. The people asked for a 
king. When kings began to rule because the people thought 
it was necessary to have kings, when the people began to 
think kings ruled by divine right, arrangement and decree, 
then they had despots. If we let trespassers cross our fields, 
knowing they damage our crops, we are conscious of suffer- 
ing injury with our permission; but when we think it is nec- 
essary to let these trespassers cross our lots, we no longer 
own our homes. 



138 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Government by consent rather than government by 
necessity is the key note of the great declaration. "We the 
people, say" shall be the enacting clause of our laws, rather 
than, "The parties, which are necessary, say." 

Why do we have kings ? Because the people feel that it 
is necessary to have kings. The despot cries : "Lead me 
Necessity mid the encircling gloom, when Democrats assail 
my path, lead thou me on." 

People as Figures and Numbers. 

At the little red school house we learn that all numbers 
can be expressed by ten characters by putting them in differ- 
ent combinations or positions. Each figure has a value of its 
own called its significant value. It also has what is called a 
representative value, which is determined by its position. 
All l's are equal, but when a cipher is placed after a 1 it 
becomes 10. A 5 is always a 5 of itself, but when a cipher is 
after it, it is 50. It has its own value and also a value given 
to it by its position. So it is with people, some are l's, some 
are 2's, and some are just ciphers. In the parliamentary 
assembly the people are l's or ciphers; those who can think 
are l's, with a definite significant value, but those who do not 
think are ciphers. They may vote and they give an added 
value to those for whom they vote. They may make a one 
into a ten or a hundred. 

The people at their little assemblies we can represent 
by significant figures, but when it comes to the larger dis- 
tricts, there are not enough significant figures to express the 
people, and then we have to give the figures a representative 
value. The figures in the higher numbers represent the same 
people that we find in the little assemblies, but instead of 
standing for themselves they stand for the town, instead of 
being ones they are hundreds or thousands. Instead of being 
figures, they are numbers ; instead of being individuals, they 
are districts. Back of them are the people who have sent 



THE REMEDY 139 

them. It is no longer Bill Jones who speaks, but the people 
of Lima. The higher assemblies or conventions of the people 
give the significant figures a different and higher representa- 
tive value, until we have hundreds, thousands and millions ; 
and in the various assemblies of the people they can express 
their wishes exactly, even to fractions and decimals. A man 
who is half Republican, because he wants protection, and 
half Prohibitionist because he wants temperance, can be a 
whole protectionist and a whole temperance man, a sociali-t 
and a free silver man at the same time. Instead of throwing 
away our votes by voting for men in third parties who rep- 
resent new principles, we can save our votes and have them 
counted for whatever principles or questions we desire. 

A Model Election in New York State. 

The State is divided up into election districts of con- 
venient size, In the country districts one hundred voters 
are allowed for one district, in villages and cities about two 
hundred fifty voters from a district. Such divisions may be 
made by the board of supervisors or the city aldermen. 

In a city like Rochester, there would be about one hun- 
dred seventy-five election districts. Where would such elec- 
tions be held? There are forty public school buildings that 
could be used for such purposes, there are over forty public 
halls, and there are ninety churches that may be so used, 
besides several rooms in the court house and city hall. 

The schools and churches would be ideal places for such 
meetings. In the country districts there are enough school 
houses and churches to provide for all such meetings. The 
State could build or rent enough halls so that the churches 
need not be used for such purposes, but there does not seem 
to be any good reason why the churches would not be the 
most suitable place for such assemblies. Surely if the voice 
of the people is the voice of God, this voice should be heard 
in the churches. 



140 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Such meetings at such places would bring out our best 
citizens, who now stay away from political gatherings from 
sheer disgust, while the drunkards, the criminals, the floaters 
and repeaters would be out of place there and would be noted 
by their absence. Read again the report of the Chicago 
Grand Jury and think if it would not be a wonderful improve- 
ment if the meetings were held in churches. In Colonial 
times the people often held their town meetings in churches 
and school houses, and the work they did there was noted 
for its quality. These meetings formed the American 
Republic, and the stones of which the temple was built are its 
surest foundation. 

On election day the assembly is held throughout the 
State. It is a holiday and one of the most interesting we 
have. The people turn out as if there were a show of 
remarkable attractiveness. What can be more interesting 
than the opportunity of the people to meet and tell what 
they want in this great government of ours? They never 
had the chance before. When assembly day comes around 
they will all be there. 

The meeting is called to order by an inspector of elec- 
tion, who is chairman of the meeting and who is elected by 
each meeting for the next year. There is an order of busi- 
ness as a guide for the meeting. Committees are appointed, 
nominations are made, informal ballots are taken, and as a 
result of the day's deliberations the people have chosen the 
officers of the meeting, chosen representatives to the town, 
city, county and assembly district assemblies. They have 
instructed these representatives whom they desire for the 
various officers that are to be chosen by these delegates, they 
have done this by means of motions or by informal ballots. 
They have expressed themselves on the various questions 
that have been discussed at the meeting or that have been 
proposed at former meetings and now brought up for con- 



THE REMEDY 141 

sideration. They have met face to face, they have discussed 
and considered questions intelligently among themselves, 
they have expressed their wish and opinions in regard to 
affairs of the local, state or national government. Having 
rendered their decisions as free citizens they go to their 
homes, and not a word has been heard about political par- 
ties, they are all dead. 

Each assembly chooses a representative who has one 
vote for each one hundred people voting at the meeting at 
which he was chosen. The representatives of a town meet 
as a representative town assembly. It is in a public hall or 
church and is open to the people. Its proceedings are public, 
the hall is full of spectators. The meeting is called to order, 
and town officers are chosen according to the instructions 
given the representatives by the people who chose them. 

A county representative assembly is now held, the dele- 
gates or representatives from the election districts of the 
various towns are there, it is a public meeting and there are 
many interested observers. The representatives choose 
county officers in accordance with the instructions given 
them by their people. If no such instructions are given, the 
delegates take an informal ballot to express their own wishes 
and judgment on candidates. From this ballot the members 
know who are considered possible candidates, and from those 
mentioned the county officers are chosen. If they do not 
choose good men, then American judgment, American 
patriotism and common sense are grievously at fault. The 
intellectual flower of the county is here assembled and feel 
themselves the representatives of the people of the county, 
and their acts are open to the approbation and criticism of 
the people. Shall we not be able to say of them as the great 
English Statesman, Pitt, said of the American Colonists 
when their representatives assembled in meetings to protest 
against government over them in which they had no part: 



142 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

"They chose delegates, by their free suffrages; no bribery, 
no corruption, no influence there, my lords. Their repre- 
sentatives meet, with the sentiments and temper, and speak 
the sense of the continent. For genuine sagacity, for sing- 
ular moderation, for solid wisdom, manly spirit, sublime 
sentiments, and simplicity of language, for everything re- 
spectable, and honorable, the Congress of Philadelphia shine 
unrivalled." 

The representatives in county assembly also choose 
representatives for a State assembly, and tabulate the votes 
that have been cast at the different primary election districts. 
Thus the representatives from each county go to the State 
assembly with direct instructions as to whom the people of 
the different districts want for certain officers, but most im- 
portant of all, these representatives know the wishes of the 
people in regard to public questions and principles of gov- 
ernment. The people have expressed themselves on free 
text books, on public roads, on state canals, on the income 
tax, etc., etc. 

The representatives from the counties to the State Par- 
liamentary Assembly of the people meet at the State capital 
and express the voice of the people as they have heard it 
come up from the assemblies of the people. They have be- 
fore them a record of the wishes of the people both as to 
officers desired and choice of principles and policies of gov- 
ernment. They know what the people want. They canvass 
and tabulate the votes of the people and report the result, 
which becomes a valuable guide to the State legislators. If 
the people want race track gambling stopped they can easily 
express themselves on that point, and the Governor will not 
have to proclaim to the world that our Constitution is in the 
gutter. The State Assembly will also choose State officers 
who are now appointed by the political bosses. 



THE REMEDY 143 

Think whether officers appointed by delegates or com- 
mitteemen chosen in back rooms of saloons or in private 
offices, by bribe givers and bribe takers, by men who make 
a business of politics and are working for their own pockets 
all the time, can be compared with those who will be chosen 
by representatives of the people picked out at free parlia- 
mentary assemblies of all the people in their schools and 
churches. The contrast will be like the darkness of midnight 
compared with light of the noonday sun in a cloudless sky. 
No longer will Diogenes seek the honest man in vain, no 
longer will an honest man in public life cause us to think 
of him in wonder, but the man who is found faithless to his 
trust will be the one whom we shall look upon as the excep- 
tion to the rule. Yes, humanity is honest at the core, it is 
only when it breathes the foul gases of corruption that ex- 
hale from the sewer of graft that it becomes pitted with the 
pox of misrepresentation. 

The delegates or representatives who make up the con- 
gressional district assembly of the people will choose a mem- 
ber of congress, who will know what the people want, for 
they will have expressed themselves by ballot on the various 
questions that have been considered. The delegates will also 
choose a presidential elector, who will also know whom the 
people of his district prefer for President, if they have any 
choice, for they will have expressed themselves by means 
of an informal ballot. Everywhere we see the public officers 
are chosen in broad daylight by the people or the direct and 
directed representatives of the people. Everywhere we see 
the representatives of the people enlightened by the voice of 
the people expressed by a free ballot and an exact count. 

At the proper time these presidential electors of the 
State meet at the State capital and consider the choice of a 
President and a Vice-President. Here we shall have thirty- 
nine representatives of the people chosen for this special 
purpose, by delegates whom the people have chosen from 
among their midst, chosen without a suggestion of bribery, 
and not only chosen for a special work, but instructed as far 
as the people are able, as to how the work is to be done. 



144 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER XII. 
THE PLATFORM 

We the people express the following facts and principles 
as a true guide to our political action : 

That according to the laws of nature, all races and na- 
tionalities, are equal in their right to govern themselves. 

That the highest civilization results from the people 
associating in equality. 

That our government is founded on the principle that 
self-government is a natural right, that the people have the 
ability to exercise that right, and that this is to be a govern- 
ment of the people, by the people, and for the people. 

That the Declaration of Independence and the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, 
and express true political principles. 

That the Constitution is but the framework of the gov- 
ernment, it is but the wagon in which the people may ride, 
and that some means must be provided by which the wagon 
shall be run, that the people may ride. 

That the American people have the necessary intelli- 
gence to govern themselves, to operate the wagon in which 
they ride, and that the people shall rule. 

That the framers of the Constitution gave the people 
the right to act, but failed to provide any means by which 
they could act or express their wishes in regard to the oper- 
ation of the government. 

That in giving the people the right to choose officers 
they did not give them the opportunity to choose officers. 

That the people have the power to act, the right to act, 
but not the ability to act, because there has been no law 
passed prescribing the method by which they can act. 

That organization is necessary for any body of people 
to act. 



THE PLATFORM 145 

That the Constitution was adopted by a parliamentary 
body. 

That the delegates to the Convention which adopted the 
Constitution were chosen at Parliamentary Assemblies of the 
people. 

That the Constitution even declared that the President 
was to be elected by a Parliamentary Assembly of the Elec- 
tors of the people, but, 

That the framers of the Constitution and laws have 
failed to provide any means for organizing the people into 
Parliamentary Assemblies or societies by which they can 
act. 

That government by the people requires that they be 
organized into Parliamentary Assemblies in which they can 
express their choice of officers and choice of principles of 
government. 

That the people have been acknowledged as having the 
natural right and power to express their wishes, but 

That they have not been entrusted with the exercising 
of that right and power. 

That the Parliamentary Assembly of the people is the 
one thing lacking in our government to make it a govern- 
ment of the people, by the people, and for the people. 

That the people shall rule by the establishment of them- 
selves as Constituent Parliamentary Assemblies, each As- 
sembly being a unit of the State and of the United States. 

That on account of the failure of the people in the be- 
ginning to make any provision for organizing themselves to 
exercise the pow T er belonging to them, political parties have 
sprung up and have organized the people under the rule of 
political bosses, who govern in place of the people. 

That instead of having assemblies of the people, we have 
assemblies of politicians. 



146 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

That the people now act through political parties, and 
that is the only way they can act, for no way has been pro- 
vided for their action, and the necessity for somebody acting 
in the government has formed parties to act for the people. 

That political parties are run by parliamentary assem- 
blies of politicians, at which the people have no voice. 

That instead of these self-constituted organizations of 
self-seeking politicians, we should provide for the organiza- 
tion of all the people into assemblies where they can express 
themselves both as to choice of men and choice of principles 
of government. 

We declare with Senator Root that "Organization will 
always overcome disorganization." 

We also declare that organizations of politicians have 
overcome the people unorganized. 

That under party rule the government is run over the 
people disorganized, and that the people are exploited, plun- 
dered and made subservient to the politicians. 

We declare with Governor Hughes that "The easiest 
way for special interests to secure favors and to get the best 
of the laws is through a treaty with a party machine." 

We declare that parties create class government which is 
dangerous to the safety of all government. 

That the people have suffered under party government 
and that they are now enduring evils that ought not to be. 

That government by parties is a necessity as the laws 
now are. 

That Governor Hughes and others propose to make 
government by parties more necessary than it now is. 

That government by parties is a failure, has been a fail- 
ure, and of necessity must be a failure. 

That government of the people, by the people, and for 
the people can be secured only by organizing the people into 
Parliamentary Assemblies in which they can express them- 
selves. 



THE PLATFORM 147 

That the historical growth of democracy has shown this 
to be its true method of development, that the town meetings 
of the Anglo-Saxons, the Magna Charta of England, the 
town meetings of the American Colonies, the parliamentary 
meetings of the people to declare their Independence and to 
establish their Constitution, all show that the only means by 
which the people can act is through such Parliamentary As- 
semblies. 

That the people have the right to assemble to govern 
themselves, that the laws have failed to give the people that 
opportunity, and we demand that such opportunity now be 
given to all the people. 

We demand that election laws be passed which will or- 
ganize the people into Parliamentary Assemblies in election 
districts of convenient size. 

That these assemblies be open to all the legal voters of 
the district in which they are held, that they be organized as 
are proper legislative assemblies, that the people may propose 
and discuss questions of government and candidates for 
public office, that after such discussion there shall be a vote 
by ballot to ascertain the wishes of the voters in regard to 
principles, and that there shall be an informal ballot for offi- 
cers to be chosen, and that then other ballots shall be taken 
until the will of the people assembled is properly ascertained. 

That each election district shall choose as many dele- 
gates or committeemen or supervisors or selectment or repre- 
sentatives as each may be entitled to according to population, 
and that these men so chosen shall be officers of that district, 
that these representatives of any town meet to choose other 
officers for that town, that these representatives of a city, 
county, assembly or other such district, meet as a parliamen- 
tary body and choose officers for their respective districts, 
that the representatives of each assembly district choose 
representatives who shall be State officers or representatives 



148 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

and who shall choose officers for the State, that delegates or 
representatives be chosen at the State assembly district meet- 
ings to be officers for the purpose of choosing a Presidential 
Elector in each Congressional district, and that the State 
representatives choose two Electors-at-large for the State. 

We demand that the expression of choice of men and 
choice of measures given by the people at such assemblies 
shall be followed by their representatives in all their meet- 
ings, and that if the people express a desire for a certain law, 
that provision shall be immediately enacted into law by the 
proper legislative authorities. 

We demand that every voter have his constitutional 
right to vote, to express himself in favor of any man for any 
office, and that he have the greater right and privilege of 
expressing himself for or against any proposed law or meas- 
ure, and that he may by vote propose any law or measure. 

We demand that every voter have a chance to express 
his wishes as clearly and definitely as do the members of any 
parliamentary assembly in the world. 

We do not propose protection or free trade, neither free 
silver nor the gold standard, neither socialism nor prohibi- 
tion. We declare all such questions as of minor importance 
to the great question, Shall the people rule? Shall the people 
be allowed to express themselves not on one question but on 
all questions ? Shall they be enabled to express their choice 
not between two candidates picked out by politicians, but to 
choose from all men? 

We denounce the proposition of Governor Hughes and 
others to impose upon the people party rule, as statutory boss 
rule, and to fasten onto the people the shackles of govern- 
ment by politicians. 

We denounce the proposition that the State go into part- 
nership with parties as monstrous, and as tending to establish 
over us an authority outside of ourselves, an authority com- 



THE PLATFORM 149 

plete in itself, that will reduce us to subjection and turn the 
Republic into an oligarchy or a despotism. 

We denounce those who declare that parties are neces- 
sary as enemies to the people. The acts of tyrants are ex- 
cused by "necessity." Parties are necessary only when the 
people cannot rule, and to legally declare that parties are 
necessary and to change our election laws so as to make par- 
ties necessary, is to disfranchise the people, and violate the 
Constitution. 

We denounce the so-called direct primary election law 
as one of the devices with which hell is paved, a good inten- 
tion but with a most disastrous end — the establishment of a 
political oligarchy over the people and a luring of the people 
to rest under the false idea that when they are approving 
directed nominations they are having direct nominations. 

Some excuse a government by party on the ground that 
it is necessary, some excuse trusts for the same reason, and 
some excuse child labor and the sweat shop on the ground 
that the capitalist must have his profit. All such statesmen 
we declare false prophets and we say to them: "You shall 
not feed our children to this God of party hunger, you shall 
not make necessity the tombstone over their graves." 

Parties must be destroyed, and the defenders of party 
rule and advocates of party government shall be put to shame 
when they shall meet their free brothers face to face in the 
Constituent Parliamentary Assemblies where the people shall 
rule. 



150 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER XIII. 

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT. 

Plan for Choosing President. 

The question of how the President should be elected it 
is said took one-seventh of all the time that was used in 
framing the Constitution. There were several plans pro- 
posed. 

Under the Confederation the President of Congress was 
elected by the Congress, and some proposed to have Con- 
gress choose the new President. Congress represents the 
people and the States, and it would seem that such a body of 
representative men would be well able to make a good choice, 
and no doubt they would. But it was also pointed out that 
it would give Congress too much power, that the President 
would be obligated to the members of Congress, that he 
would be one of their own number, and that, therefore, Con- 
gress would have absolute control of the government. The 
main question was how to choose a President and yet not 
have him under obligations to the officers or body that chose 
him. He should represent the whole people and therefore it 
would not be well to have him responsible to Congress or 
any such body. 

At that time there was no thought of the people express- 
ing themselves in favor of certain principles of government 
by having certain men representing those principles, elected 
to office. They considered that the President was merely to 
execute the laws passed by Congress, and they did not think 
that it would be necessary to elect a President having certain 
"beliefs", in order that the people might get certain desired 
laws passed by Congress. They considered the President as 
a law executor, not as a law giver. They did not think of 
the President as the leader of a great political party -whose 
principles were to be made a part of the laws through the 



ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 151 

influence of the President. They did not think of the Presi- 
dent as a dictator in the White House kolding the Big Stick 
over the Congress and enforcing his personal will by running 
his party machine over all who stood in the path of his 
progress. They did not expect the President to lasso mem- 
bers of Congress, Senators and Judges, and bring them into 
the party "round up." They anticipated a "government" of 
statesmen rather than a "plunderbund" of politicians. 

In colonial times the State Senators of Maryland, were 
chosen by electors who were elected by the people. This plan 
may have given the members of the Constitutional Conven- 
tion their idea of electing the President by electors. Every 
five years the people of Maryland chose electors from the 
various districts of the state to constitute an electoral body, 
and these electors met to choose the fifteen state senators. 

The people of the State were scattered over many miles, 
with no means of travel except by foot or horseback. They 
had no newspapers, their only chance of passing opinions 
from one to the other was by personal meetings. How could 
those people choose State Senators or any other officers from 
large districts? Of course, they could not, but they could 
choose from among their neighbors and acquaintances, intel- 
ligent men who could meet as a college of electors and pick 
out men who would be proper representatives of the people. 

It was finally decided to have the President elected by 
Presidential Electors. This is a government of the people 
and also of the States, so it was decided that these Electors 
should be chosen by States, and that each State should have 
a* many electors as it had Representatives in Congress and 
United States Senators. The two houses of Congress repre- 
sent the people and the States, and this plan is similar to the 
plan of having the two houses of Congress choose the Presi- 
dent ; but the Presidential Electors would be independent of 
Congress and would be chosen for the special purpose of 



152 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

choosing a President, and having done this they would have 
no further influence over him. 

The Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such 
manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of 
electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Repre- 
sentatives to which the State may be entitled in the Con- 
gress. " It also adds that no office-holder of the United States 
shall be appointed an Elector. This is to prevent public 
officers from getting control of the Electoral College and 
using it to elevate one of their number to the Presidency. It 
was a guiding principle of the framers of the Constitution 
not to give any officer more power than is necessary, and it 
would not have been well to put into the hands of public 
officers the power of choosing the President. 

The Constitution before it was amended said: "The 
electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by 
ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an 
inhabitant of the same State with themselves. " It then tells 
how these electors shall meet and vote and make lists of the 
persons voted for and send such lists to the President of the 
Senate, who shall on a certain day in the presence of the 
Senate and House of Representatives open the certificates 
and count the votes. The person who has the highest num- 
ber of votes, if a majority, shall be declared elected Presi- 
dent, and the person who receives the next highest number of 
votes shall be Vice-President. 

The number of Electors at the beginning was sixty-nine, 
now there are four hundred and eighty-three. The Constitu- 
tion says: "The electors shall MEET in their respective 
States, and vote by ballot for two persons." The word 
"meet" is very important. Why could they not vote for two 
persons without meeting? Here we have sixty-nine men, 
or now four hundred and eighty-three, divided among the 
different States, chosen for the special work of voting for 



ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 153 

two men, one of whom shall be President and one Vice- 
President. They are chosen for their ability to make a good 
choice. It is to be assumed that they will be well qualified 
to do their work. Now, could they not vote without Meet- 
ing ? Could they not vote by ballot in the same manner that 
we now ask the people to vote for our officers ? Now we do 
not let the people "meet." If it is necessary for sixty-nine 
able men to meet in little groups of from three to twelve to 
decide on whom they shall finally cast their ballots for, is it 
not much more necessary for sixteen million people to 
MEET in little groups to enable them to decide on whom 
they shall vote for President ? Shall we expect the mass of 
the people to do what a few of the most able men of the 
country cannot do? Of course, the Electors would have to 
meet in some way to talk over men for President before 
they could cast their ballots and have any kind of agreement 
in the vote. The meeting may be official or unofficial, but it 
would be necessary. Now, we say we know how all the 
Electors are going to vote. Yes, the "meetings" have been 
held, at which it was decided whom they shall vote for. 
These meetings were the National Conventions of the two 
great parties ; that is the place where Presidents are made ; 
that is the place where the real meetings of the Presidential 
Electors are held ; that is where the Electors learn on whom 
they shall agree. But the design of the framers of the Con- 
stitution was that the Electors would be chosen for their wis- 
dom and patriotism, that they would meet, deliberate, and 
vote for two good men. It was thought they might not be 
able to agree on one man for President and one for Vice- 
President, so they were to vote for two men. They would 
vote for the two men they considered best for President. 
The man on whom the largest number should agree would 
probably be the best man and would make a good President. 
The man on whom the next highest number of electors 



154 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

should agree would be Vice-President. Of course, the 
people could not pick out a President without meeting. The 
legislature could provide some means by which the people 
could choose Electors, and these Electors, chosen for their 
special ability, by meeting, could discover a good man for 
President. Of course, it would be necessary for the Electors 
of the different States to have meetings or conventions to 
agree on some man or men who should be considered at the 
regular meetings of the Electors. What plan could have 
been devised that would better focus the intelligence and de- 
sires of the people and produce a good choice? 

The first meetings of Presidential Electors, 1792, 1796, 
1800, resembled party conventions. There is this difference. 
The Electors represented all the people, instead of a part of 
them. The Electors were public officials chosen to do a 
public duty. The Delegates to a convention are politicians 
seeking their own advantage "all the time." The Electors 
choose the best men for the people. The Delegates choose 
the best men for the party. The Electors are animated by 
patriotism, the Delegates are led by partisanship. The 
Statesman is the fruit of one method, the Politician of the 
other. 

Election of Presidential Electors. 

The Constitution says that the Presidential Electors 
shall be appointed in such a manner as the State Legislatures 
may direct. The electors have been chosen in different ways : 
by the houses of the legislature voting jointly, by the houses 
of the legislature voting concurrently, by the people electing 
them on State tickets, by the people electing them in dis- 
tricts. 

At the beginning in most of the colonies the electors 
were chosen by the legislatures directly. In Delaware they 
were so chosen till 1832, in South Carolina till 1860, in New 
York till 1828. 



ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 155 

They were elected by districts in about a dozen States 
at different times, in New York in 1828. They were elected 
by general tickets in all the States except South Carolina 
since 1832, except in 1892 Michigan chose electors by dis- 
tricts, the first time any State had such an election since 1832, 
which was in Maryland. This method of voting by districts 
is the most Democratic. The Constitution left the matter of 
deciding how the electors shall be chosen to the State legis- 
latures. If there were no parties to arouse popular prejudice 
and excitement, the district plan would seem to be the one 
that would carry out the ideas of the framers of the Consti- 
tution. The people of each Congressional District would be 
more able to choose a good elector from their district than 
they would be able to choose several electors from the whole 
State. How can the people of the State of New York by 
direct nomination or election, choose thirty-nine electors 
scattered all over the State ? Without previous arrangement 
it is safe to say that in the State of New York, no two men 
out of the million voters would vote for the same thirty-nine 
candidates. All the plans and discussions of the Constitu- 
tional Convention show that the framers had no idea of 
political parties nominating the electors for the people to vote 
for. If they had, they would have made different provision. 

What can be plainer than that the State should organize 
the people so they can express themselves ? It did not do so, 
parties grew up to do it, to organize the people so they could 
express themselves, but the parties have organized the people 
under the politicians. The opportunity of the people now is 
the organization of themselves under the government, as they 
should have been organized in 1787. 

Washington was nominated by common consent, spon- 
taneously, by the voice of the people. He was the most 
prominent figure of the time. In a similar way Adams was 
chosen Vice-President. Parties began to form under Wash- 
ington's administration. In 1796 the first true nominations 



156 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

were made. Then there were the Federal and Democratic 
parties. The members of these parties in Congress held a 
caucus and decided upon their candidates, and the electors 
were chosen mostly by the State Legislatures. This method 
of nominating candidates was followed till 1824. The Con- 
gressional caucus had become all powerful through custom 
in nominating candidates, and indirectly in naming the Pres- 
ident. This caucus was properly called "King Caucus". In 
1824 there were four candidates, all Democrats. The four 
candidates were chosen by comon consent of the party 
leaders, they being four prominent men of the party, 
although legislative caucuses supported the various candi- 
dates. The first National Convention was held in 1832. 

"The overthrow of "King Caucus" was properly re- 
garded as the greatest political reform since the establish- 
ment of the Republic." — New York World. 

The National Convention took the place of King Caucus, 
and we may, therefore call it King Convention. It is pro- 
posed by the reformers to have the Party Committee take the 
place of King Convention, and then it will be proper to 
speak of King Committee. But we propose to have the 
people in their parliamentary assemblies take the place of 
caucus, convention and committee, and then the people will 
be King. If the substitution of the convention for the caucus 
was the greatest political reform since the establishment of 
the Republic, the substitution of the people for the conven- 
tion will be the greatest political reform in the history of the 
race. 

Which is more democratic, the National Convention 
under the rule and domination of the party bosses, or the 
Electoral College, acting under law, elected by the delegates 
of the people chosen in assemblies of the people ? 



ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 157 

What the Founders Wanted to Avoid. — The Contest 
We Have It Xcrw. 

The founders did not provide for the carrying out of the 
plan of electoral voting, and, therefore, their desired plan has 
failed. We will do what they should have done and we shall 
see the wisdom of their plan. We will elect now as they 
should have elected at the beginning. 

Hozv the People Were Supposed to Choose President. 

The Constitution provides that the President shall be 
elected by electors chosen by the several Sta: ich 

manner as the legislatures may direct. The thought of the 
framers of the Constitution was that the legislatures would 
appoint or have the people choose the best men in the re- 
spective States for Presidential Electors, and that these men 
would meet in their respectiv 5 and vote for the : 

best men they could think of for President, and the man who 
had the most votes would be President, and the one having 
the next highest number of votes would be Vice-President. 

How the F Id Do I : Were No Parties to 

Name Candidates for Presidential Elect 

In the State of Xew York the voters would be called 
upon to choose thirty-nine electors. For myself I could name 
thirty-nine men who would be suitable for electors, bat I 
could not name one in each Congressional District without 
consulting an almanac or political directory, and I am ab- 
lutely certain that the thirty-nine men I would name would 
not be named by anybody else, and I think that no two men in 
the State would name the same men. It would take a long 
time to count the votes and determine which thirty-nine men 
had received the greatest number, and it is quite certain that 
they would not receive a majority. If the people of each 
Congressional District were to elect one elector for that 



158 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

district and two for the whole State, the confusion would be 
nearly as great. How twenty thousand or fifty thousand 
voters can go to the polls and vote for the same men without 
previous arrangement is beyond the understanding of even 
a mind-reader. The fact is if there were no machinery to 
nominate candidates, the people would not vote at all, there 
would be no one to vote for. 

HOW THEY DO WITH PARTIES. 
In Theory. 

The members of the party in town or ward caucuses 
choose delegates for a county convention. These delegates 
choose other delegates to a State convention, the State con- 
vention chooses delegates to a National convention. The Na- 
tional convention nominates a candidate, and the members of 
the party vote for him. The choice of the convention is the 
choice of the members of the party, for the members have 
given their instructions to the local delegates to represent 
them. 

In Practice. 

The National convention is called by the party leaders. 
The State conventions are then called by the State leaders. 
The county conventions by the county leaders, and the town 
caucus by the local leaders. The slate is made up at "head- 
quarters". The people listen for the groan from the "Amen 
Corner". It does not matter what names appear on the 
ballot for delegates, they are bound by the instructions of the 
managers. The various conventions meet, and like clock 
work carry out their instructions. The members of the party 
vote for their candidates, and if they are successful they are 
much elated over the fact that their wishes have triumphed. 



ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 159 

How They Would Do in the Washington Party. 

All the people would assemble in their election districts. 
discuss candidates for the Presidency, and select one or more 
of their best men to represent them as delegates. The men 
would meet in their county conventions and choose their best 
men as delegates to a Congressional district convention. 
This convention would consist of the direct representatives of 
the people and would pick out the best man in the district for 
a Presidential elector. The people all over the country would 
do likewise. The College of Electors would meet, discuss 
candidates and pick out the best man they could think of for 
President. 

The election of President is a National election. The 
candidates are chosen by National conventions, and only 
those chosen at such conventions can be voted for by the 
people. If we must confine ourselves to the choice between 
the two men nominated by the two parties, the nomination of 
Presidential Electors, as Governor Hughes says, is of no ac- 
count. It may be left to the party convention or bosses. 

This institution of party, by which the President is nomi- 
nated, has become an unwritten part of the Constitution. It 
has become a second Constitution, more powerful than that 
which is written. Shall we make it a part of the real Con- 
stitution? Shall we adopt the party constitution under which 
the people must act ? Shall we turn the election of President 
over to the two great parties and make it a law that those 
whom they nominate we must elect ? 

If the people could meet in Parliamentary Assemblies to 
choose electors the ideal conditions would be met. In most 
of the election districts, cities and states, a party nomination 
by the dominating party is equivalent to an election, that 
is the man who is nominated is elected. After the nomination 
is made the people actually have nothing to say as to who 



160 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

shall be the officer. The nomination is in the hands of a com- 
mittee, and the election is practically in the hands of the 
same parties. 

There is only one way for the people to elect and that 
is to choose. The idea of the people electing one of the two 
candidates nominated by the parties would be grotesque if 
we were not used to it. It is not choice at all. The people 
simply must consent to take one of the two men nomi- 
nated. For the people to choose a President they must have 
an opportunity to express their choice. They may have in 
mind some man whom they would like for President ; and if 
so they should have an opportunity to name that man. It is 
more likely they will have no one in mind, and in that case 
the only thing they can do is to secure representatives to 
make a choice for them. They can give their representatives 
such instructions as they see fit, but it is absolutely certain 
that the representatives of the people chosen by them in their 
parliamentary assemblies would express the will of the 
people as far as their will could be expressed. It would give 
the people a chance to name their choice for President by ex- 
actly so many votes, if they had a choice, and it would give 
them a chance to pick out a representative citizen to confer 
with other representatives chosen by like assemblies to ar- 
rive at a common opinion. There is no question but that the 
people assembled would pick out the best men of each local- 
ity, and it is just as certain that those men when assembled 
as a convention would pick out their best men to make up a 
higher assemblage. And the Electoral College made up of 
the State Electors would be the most intelligent and best 
equipped body of men in the Nation to choose the President. 
Their nomination would be an election. It was generally 
admitted that the Republican nominee in 1908 would be 
elected. Now which is best, to leave the choice of President 
to one man, as it was in that case, or to leave it to a College 



ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 161 

of four hundred eighty-three Electors chosen by the people 
of the whole country, chosen for the special purpose of 
choosing a President? There are no two sides to the answer. 
The Parliamentary Assembly will give an exact expression 
of the sentiments of the people. They could even express 
themselves for first, second and third choice. 

Our written Constitution has become a dead letter 
through negligence of the government to provide the neces- 
sary means by which the people can act. Parties have taken 
the place that the people should have taken, and now we say 
the Constitution has become a dead letter. Let us restore 
its life. Let the people express themselves in their political 
schools, the school-houses turned into Parliamentary As- 
semblies, let them choose representatives who will make up 
our Electoral Colleges. 

There are thirty-nine Presidential Electors chosen in 
New York State. There are thirty-nine well known Col- 
leges in the State. Suppose the President of each of these 
colleges was made an Elector, would they not be well qual- 
ified to select a President ? 

Popular Vote. 
Why not let all the people of the United States vote 
directly for President, and let the man receiving the highest 
number of votes be declared elected? Without some "party" 
or committee to make nominations, the people would have 
no one in mind to vote for. They might be able to vote for 
one hundred good men, but without some chance to agree 
on whom they should vote for, they would not be able to 
vote at all. Their hands would be tied by sheer inability to 
decide on whom they wanted to vote for. There can be no 
agreement among the multitude until the leaders of opinion 
tell them on whom they may agree. Their desires would be 
"without form and void" until some sign should appear by 
which thev mav know whom their fellow citizens are think- 



162 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

ing of. To agree we must know more than our own mind, 
we must know the mind of those with whom we must agree. 
We may all be able to guess the exact number of grains of 
sand in a box, but we would never be able to agree on who 
we think would be a good President without talking with 
those with whom we were to agree. Some great man, some 
true statesman may appear, and stand out like a giant among 
the people. On such the people could and would agree, but 
in the absence of a particular bright star our possible candi- 
dates for the Presidency would look like the Milky Way. The 
telescope of "party" or some other "organization" would be 
necessary to make clear the outlines of our candidate. We 
cannot agree on something we know nothing of. To agree we 
must have definite information as to what we are to agree to. 
We must act on a definite proposition and not be left to 
wander among sixteen million names. 

But we have parties to name candidates for us. We 
have parties to tell us to take our choice between the two 
men whom they are pleased to pick out for us. Of course, 
we can agree as to which one of these two we want, and if 
that is all we can do it is hardly worth taking the trouble to 
agree, for it makes little difference which one we let rule 
us. We agree to let the politicians make their choice, which 
becomes our choice. 

But after the parties nominate the two candidates that 
we are permitted to agree on, why not let us vote directly on 
the two names instead of voting for the electors who vote 
for the same men we would vote for? If the electoral votes 
of New York are counted for Taft, why not have all the 
votes cast for such electors counted for Taft? This would 
make the final result depend on the actual number of votes 
cast, and the contest would not be determined until all the 
votes in the United States had been counted. The result 
may be close and the votes of a few men may turn the scale. 



ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 163 

There would be great effort put forth to secure every vote. 
The contest would be carried into every nook and corner of 
the country, there would be no sure State and no doubtful 
State. The whole country would be doubtful. A vote in 
South Carolina would be of as much importance as a vote 
in Xew York. Now South Carolina is safely democratic 
and the State is saved the excitement of a Presidential Cam- 
paign. The same is true with many of the States. But the 
doubtful States form the real battleground, and yet a vote 
there is not so important as if the votes were cast directly 
for the candidates. The votes of Xew York determine how 
the thirty-nine electoral votes shall be cast. But those 
thirty-nine votes may not decide the election, and if these 
thirty-nine electors are chosen by one thousand popular 
votes it is just the same as if they were chosen by three hun- 
dred thousand vote-. Voting for electors by States breaks 
the force of the waves of popular excitement as they dash 
upon the shore on election day. If all votes were cast di- 
rectly for President, there would be great inducement to 
bribery. So when the leaders think they are going to carry 
a State, they cease their efforts to pile up a great popular 
majority, for the extra votes do not count. But if all votes 
were counted directly for the candidates, there would be an 
unceasing struggle for votes in every voting district in the 
United States until the last vote was cast. 

The struggle between the parties would be much more 
bitter. The result would probably be the same. Each man 
would have the satisfaction of knowing that his vote was 
cast direct for President. But is that any satisfaction? 
As long as we cannot vote for the selection of the candi- 
dates, is it a great privilege to vote for one of the candidates 
that some politicians have picked out? Direct popular vote 
under parties is not desirable. Direct popular vote without 
parties is impossible as our election laws now are. 



164 THK WASHINGTON PARTY 

The people cannot vote directly for President, they can 
vote indirectly for candidates nominated by parties. They 
cannot nominate candidates for President, they cannot vote 
even indirectly for candidates who have not been nominated 
by political parties. Let us see how they came to vote as 
they do. What was the origin of the system? 

When the framers of the government planned the elec- 
tion of President, their idea was to secure a good man for 
the office. The objections offered to the different plans of 
choosing a President at that time show that the statesmen 
were thinking only of choosing a capable man. What prin- 
ciples he should carry out did not enter into the discussion. 
When the people began to divide on questions of principle, 
then measures became more than men, and the choice of a 
good man gave way to the choice of a man, any man, who 
stood for certain principles. At the beginning there seemed 
to be no thought about expression of principles. Later there 
came to be only the thought of the expression of principles. 
The government made no provision for the expression of 
the will of the people beyond choosing officers, and the 
people to express their wills had to form parties and elect 
their parties to office and make their parties the government. 
In that sense parties are necessary. If we want to get a prin- 
ciple enacted into law, we must do it through a party. If we 
want to establish the principle of socialism in the state, we 
must put the socialist party in power. That is where our 
government is a failure, and that is why we say parties are 
necessary. They are necessary because of the failure. If 
we supply the defect they will not be necessary. Parties 
came to enable the people to rule by giving them a chance 
to express their choice of principles. Through organizing, 
the parties have bound and gagged the people so they can- 
not rule. Shall we unbind them ? Shall we set them free ? 



ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 165 

Why Was the Plan for Choosing President Adopted? 

The framers of the Constitution knew that the people 
could not meet to decide on a man, that they would not know 
how to pick out a suitable man, that they could not agree on 
a man without meeting or having somebody meet in their 
place. They knew that representatives of the people must 
get together to compare possible candidate^. They were 
forming a representative government, and all the machinery 
was based on the representative principle. They thought the 
choice of officers should be in the hands of the people as 
far as possible, but they could see that the choice of the 
President could not be put into the hands of the people. 
They wanted the people to choose representatives directly as 
far as possible. But some of the representatives it was 
necessary to choose by other representatives. Each locality 
could pick out its best men, who would be able to choose 
better than the mass of the people themselves. 

There was no question in their minds, and there is no 
question in the mind of any man today, but that the repre- 
sentatives of the people are better able to pick out a suitable 
President than are the whole body of voters. But if the 
President is to represent any political principle, then the 
wishes of the individuals should be considered. If the 
people could vote for the principle irrespective of the men. 
the choice of the men would be of little account. A Demo- 
crat does not care much about the officers as long as they are 
Democrats, but the framers of the Constitution were think- 
ing that the people would be more interested in the choosing 
of good men, and these men they thought would be chosen 
best by representatives. 

Party organizations came to express principles. The 
government should have provided a means for the people to 
express their wishes for principles, and parties would not 
have been. If it will do so now, parties will cease to be. 
Thev must be destroved. 



166 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

My Part. 

What part did I take, could I take, last fall? I could 
vote for several men, but only two would stand any chance 
of winning, Bryan or Taft. Three months of debate to de- 
cide on which ! But both are good men and it would not 
take long to decide. Of course, I did not personally know 
either one, but was told they are both good men. Only a 
small part of the voters can know the candidates, but from 
what was told us we cannot tell which is better, if there is 
any choice. But suppose I wanted to vote for Bryan and 
Sherman, I could not have done so, it would have been 
utterly impossible. This shows I vote for party not for men. 

What could I have done about the nomination of these 
candidates ? Where was the inception of the nomination of 
these candidates? 

Men are of no account. Principles are all important. 
Parties are important only as national organizations. Local 
parties amount to nothing. On national matters principle is 
all, but we cannot express ourselves on principles at all. We 
can have "direct" nominations for a few officers, but no 
"direct" action on principles. Why neglect the most im- 
portant part? 

Mr. Hughes says there is no use to bother with Presi- 
dential Electors. Let party managers pick out electors. But 
have the people nothing to say about who shall be our Pres- 
ident? No, absolutely nothing. The people must take the 
candidates picked out by the parties. We cannot vote di- 
rectly for principles, we must take the principles and the men 
given us by the parties, and it does not matter what princi- 
ples the parties may propose. Suppose I do not belong to 
any party, have I no right to have my voice heard ? Are we 
going to say by State law that the people of the State are 
bound to accept for President the men that the political par- 
ties, private affairs, nominate for them? 



ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 167 

Shall the legislature say the people must take their 
choice between two men picked out by party leaders ? Shall 
the State delegate the choosing of Presidential Electors to 
the bosses of political parties? 

The question of importance now is: "Shall the people 
rule, or shall the parties rule?" Are these parties necessary 
or can the people be entrusted with power? Shall the people 
be enfranchised by being allowed to assemble to express 
themselves, or shall thev be further disfranchised by being: 
compelled to get into parties, and to petition to have a voice 
in the party management ? 

When the State says we must be in parties to choose 
candidates, to vote, it says we must be governed by parties. 
Parties are not only necessary according to the views of our 
statesmen, but they are made absolutely necessary by the 
State law. The State says you may vote, but first you must 
get into or belong to some party. 

The individual is the unit of society ! No, the corpora- 
tion is the unit of society. A corporation is an artificial 
person created by the State, New York Central Railroad, 
Equitable Insurance Co., etc. We now recognize political 
parties as corporations above the people, to whom the people 
must bow, whose collars the people must wear or be declared 
outlawed citizens. Shall the people rule? The corporation 
is the unit of society, and this is a government of corpora- 
tions, by corporations and for corporations. 



i68 



THE WASHINGTON PARTY 



_PAflJ-Y 



1 'i " n sg ss 




DIRECT NOMINATIONS 169 

CHAPTER XIV. 
DIRECT NOMINATIONS. 

Tower of Babel. 

A lot of bricks scattered over a yard will not becoir. 
house until some one designs a plan for the house and the 
masons do their work in arranging the bricks for the ho 
according to the plan. 

Xow. if these bricks could talk and could put themselves 
in any place, or position, they coul-l not arrange themselves 
into a house without coming together in a parliamentary 
meeting where each could learn the opinions and desires of 
the others, and out of the mass of opinions form a common 
opinion and desire. 

The peopK re like these brick-. Each person 

has a "vote", opinions and a desire to express those opinions. 
How can these opinions and desires, the votes of the people, 
be expressed? How can these different shaped and odd sized 
bricks be formed into a temple of government in which the 
people rule, a temple that represents the composite will of all 
the voters ? 

How are the bricks to be assorted and arranged into 
courses with due respect to size, shape and color? They 
must be brought "together" where they can be compared, 
measured and counted. After the architect considers his ma- 
terial and the desire of the builder he makes the plan. With- 
out "organization" the voters would be in a worse plight than 
the people confused in their efforts to build the tower of 
Babel. The people in parliamentary assemblies would be the 
material, they could express their desires, and they would be 
the architects of their own temple of government, the "god" 
of party could not confuse their tongues. Instead of the 
Lord it is the "gods" of party who say: "Behold, the people 
are one. and they have all one language ; and this they begin 



170 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

to do : and now nothing will be restrained from them, which 
they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there 
confound their language, that they may not understand one 
another's speech/' Gen. 11, 6. Direct nominations would be 
the bricks scattered to the four quarters of the State, con- 
fusion worse confounded. Under the present system the 
Boss is the architect and the people's votes are "gold bricks". 

Must Be Parties? 

People cannot act together as a city or State without an 
organization to enable them to act in co-operation. 

People cannot act in the State without parties. Why? 
Because they cannot organize themselves for co-operative ac- 
tion. People cannot act in a party without a boss. Why? 
Because they cannot organize themselves for co-operative 
action. The same condition that makes it necessary to have 
a party in the State makes it necessary to have an organiza- 
tion within the party, and that is why we have bosses, and 
must have them. To say that party government is necessary 
is to say that Boss government is necessary. 

There are as many Republican voters in New York as 
there are voters in Massachusetts. Now, if the voters of 
Massachusetts must have a party to enable them to express 
themselves at the polls, the Republican voters of New York 
must have an organization within the party to enable them 
to express themselves. If we must have party government 
we MUST have BOSS government. 

Mr. Hughes says officers are voted for "directly", there- 
fore let us have party candidates voted for "directly" by the 
members of the party. But the people cannot vote directly 
for the candidates without some party to pick out candidates 
on whom the people can agree. How can the voters within 
a party vote "directly" on a candidate without some party to 
pick out the candidate for them to vote for? Ah, the com- 






DIRECT NOMINATIONS 171 

mittee does that. The members of the committee meet face 
to face and then decide. That is how all political action 
originates — there must be actual meeting of those who ex- 
press themselves. Those who do not meet "agree" to what 
the others have done, but have nothing to say about doing it. 
Those who meet are the leaders. Shall it be the people under 
the State or the politicians under the Party? 

The Fog. 

So much has been said about "direct" nominations and 
elections that it is best to look directly into the matter to see 
what is behind all the fog. 

What is the difference between direct and indirect polit- 
ical action? When we vote for a man, that is direct action. 
When we vote for somebody to vote for another man, that is 
indirect action. We vote for the second man indirectly. In 
a pure democracy we govern by direct action ; in a republic 
we govern by indirect action. When we vote for representa- 
tives we vote for what we want indirectly. 

What is the difference between an election and a nom- 
ination ? In an election we choose a man for an officer ; in a 
nomination we choose a man for a candidate for an office. 
The people of the whole State choose the officer; the people 
of one of the parties, about half the people of the State, 
choose the candidate. But more people take part in New 
York in choosing a candidate than take part in Massa- 
chusetts in choosing an officer. 

In an election we choose one of two men proposed to 
us for our consideration ; in a nomination we choose one 
man from any number of possible candidates. The election 
is therefore more simple than the nomination. 

The nomination is made first and then the election is 
held. The nomination must be made first; and that is the 
fact that is important. Without the nomination there could 



172 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

be no election. That is the fact that should startle us. If 
it were not for that, parties would not be necessary. It is 
because nominations must be made before there can be an 
election that we must have parties. Parties are necessary 
to make the nominations. After the nominations are made, 
after two men are picked out, then the voters can decide be- 
tween these two, then they can make their "direct" choice. 

At the election the voters decide between the Demo- 
cratic and Republican candidates or throw away their votes 
by voting for some "third" party. 

At the nomination what do the voters do? Nothing. 
What can they do? Nothing. It is because the voters can 
not do anything "directly" that parties are necessary. If 
they could act within the party "directly" they could act 
without the party "directly". We may say there are fewer 
people in the party than in the State. There are more 
voters in the Republican party today than there were in the 
whole country twenty-five years ago. There are more 
voters in the Republican party in New York than there are 
voters in the State of Massachusetts. The Republican 
voters of New York could choose a candidate more easily 
than the voters of Massachusetts could choose a governor 
without having nominations made. 

If the people could go to the polls and vote for officers 
without having nominations made beforehand, parties would 
not be necessary. But the voters cannot do this. They can 
not agree on candidates, and two candidates must be selected 
for them to agree on. 

Now, if the Republican voters of New York should go 
alone to the polls could they choose a governor, if no nomi- 
nations were made? No better than can all the voters of 
Massachusetts if no nominations were made. Can the Re- 
publican voters of New York go to the polls and select a can- 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 



173 



didate? No better than they can go to the polls and select an 
officer without a previous nomination. 

All the statesmen say parties are necessary because the 
people cannot pick out officers without such preliminary 
action. It is plain as day that several hundred thousand 
people cannot tell whom all the others are thinking about 
unless they have a chance to express themselves and hear 
one another. Nobody expects that the voters could go to 
the polls and choose an officer if no nominations were made. 
But some pretend to expect that the voters of a party can go 
to the polls and choose a candidate for an office. 




174 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Mr. Hughes says: "Those who in attempting to per- 
fect any system which has such a close relation to the 
public welfare as the method of party nominations, ignore 
the necessity and continuance of party organization, and 
like the ostrich bury their heads in the sand." 

Those who "ignore the necessity of party organization" 
do not stick their heads into the sand as deep as those who 
say parties are necessary because the people cannot pick out 
an officer directly, and then say direct nominations are good 
because the people can pick out a candidate directly. Let 
those who have no sand in their heads judge of the sound- 
ness of the arguments for direct nominations. 

How are nominations made? By conventions. These 
conventions are made up of delegates appointed by political 
leaders. Theoretically the party voters go to the polls at 
the primary one by one, not being allowed to talk, and vote 
"directly" for the delegates who are to represent them at the 
convention. That is direct voting for delegates, who would 
nominate candidates, and the candidates we say would be 
the indirect choice of voters. But how are the party voters 
to know whom to vote for when they get into the polling 
places ? How can they agree ? Oh, the leaders have picked 
out a list of delegates for them to agree on, all the voters 
have to do is to put the little ballot they find waiting for 
them, into the box — they put it "directly" into the box, and 
that makes it "direct" voting. See ! 

But what is the new plan of direct nominations? Why 
the party voters are going to the polls to vote "directly" for 
a man for a candidate for governor. But we all say they 
cannot do that. True. But there will be a "committee" 
that will "suggest" a man for them to vote for, and of course 
as he will be the only one to vote for, it will be an easy 
matter for the party voter to make his "directed choice. 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 175 

Now the voters go to the primary to choose deleg: 
"directly", and these delegates go to the convention and 
nominate a candidate. Under the proposed direct nomina- 
tions law, the party voter will not "waste his time" on dele- 
gates, he will not bother with them, he will let the committee 
pick out the candidate and then he will say that he wants the 
man the committee picks out. He wants to say he wants the 
candidate. He does not want to say he wants any particular 
delegates, nor does he want to give instructions to any dele- 
gates. Never mind about them. He wants to vote "direct" 
for the candidate that the committee picks out for him. But 
suppose the committee does not pick out anybody as a can- 
didate, or a "good" candidate, what can the party voter do? 
Then he can vote just as if there were no parties, of course. 
He can go out and "dig bait" while the "Boys" fish. But 
what is this committee that is to make this suggestion? The 
committee is made up of a few men who are chosen by 
"direct" vote of the party members at the primaries the same 
as the delegates are now chosen. 

The Contrast. 
Assemblyman Green, of Xew York, introduced the 
"Direct Nominations Bill". He prepared and gave out to 
the papers a comparison between the present system, which 
is declared a "farce", and what he calls the Hughes system. 
I give three of his most important paragraphs, with short 
comments of my own : 

NOMINATIONS. 
Present System. Hughes' System. 
"Party candidates are "All party candidates 
nominated by conventions must be nominated bv the 
composed of delegates direct vote of the enrolled 
chosen in primaries, or by party voters and not other- 
delegates who have been wise. Conventions are 
chosen by other delegates abolished." 
in conventions." 



176 



THE WASHINGTON PARTY 



Instead of the last paragraph would it not be well to 
say that all the officers must be elected by the direct vote of 
the voters without any party nominations and not otherwise. 
Nominations are abolished. How would it work? Would 
it not work as effectively as the "Hughes system ?" 

CONVENTIONS. 



"Delegates to nominat- 
ing conventions, instructed 
by the party voters, may be 
unseated at the will of the 
bosses and the will of the 
voters may thus be nulli- 
fied." 

Some of the delegates are 
usually unseated, and so the 
will of some of the people is 
nullified. It is interesting 
to note that Mr. Green 
states that the delegates ex- 
press the "will of the 
voters." 



"Conventions are abol- 
ished and instructions are 
rendered unnecessary, since 
the party voters are enabled 
to express their will di- 
rectly." 

Instructions by the people 
are unnecessary to those 
who suggest candidates ! 
How are the committeemen 
to know whom the voters 
want for a candidate? If 
the voters are able to ex- 
press their will directly for 
candidates why can they not 
express their will directly 
for an officer without a 
party nomination at all? 



PLATFORM. 



"Party platforms are 
framed ostensibly in con- 
ventions before candidates 
are nominated, and the men 
who are expected to carry 
them out have no voice in 
making them." 



"Party platforms are 
framed by the State com- 
mittee, in council with the 
candidates who have been 
nominated by the party in 
the primary." 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 



177 



Platforms should be 
framed in conventions of 
"instructed delegates'' who 
will know what the mem- 
bers of the party want. The 
candidates need not have 
any voice in the making of 
the platform. It should be 
made to suit the voters and 
not the candidate. Of 
course the platform should 
be made before the candi- 
date is nominated. He is to 
stand on the platform, and 
if he cannot do that he 
should not accept the nom- 
ination. 



The State committee, the 
members of which are not 
instructed and cannot be 
instructed by the party 
voters, make up the plat- 
form with the candidates. 
They tell the people what 
they must believe. Under 
the old theory we tell our 
delegates what we believe 
and they pick out a man 
who believes as we do. 
Xow it is proposed to go 
on the theory that we pick 
out a man and have him tell 
us what we believe. If that 
is the "theory" what will the 
"practice" be? 



Xow, in theory, candidates are chosen and platforms are 
written by delegates who are "instructed by the party 
voters." Under the "Hughes system" "instructions are 
rendered unnecessary," for the "committee" will suggest the 
candidate, the voters will say "Yes," and then the committee 
and candidate will tell us what our principles are. 

JUST BEGUX. 

Some newspapers that strongly insist that parties are 
necessary, now that there is talk of "direct nominations", 
profess to discover grave defects in the convention system of 
making party nominations. One of them says : 

"Every adult person in New York State, endowed with 
ordinary faculties of perception and reason, knows that the 
convention system is a failure as a form of representative 
government. It neither expresses the popular will nor 



178 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

affects to express it. The very delegates who attend the 
Conventions, scoff and sneer at any suggestion that they 
represent the people, or that they are free to make their 
own deliberate choice of candidates. Every newspaper that 
reports to its readers the proceedings of a party convention, 
takes cognizance of the patent fact that the delegates are 
the creatures of one or more men who will determine, in 
secret, behind closed doors, what the action of the conven- 
tion shall be. Everyone knows that this is the rule of oper- 
ation in state, county, district and city conventions, and that 
it has been as thoroughly established as a feature of our 
government as if it had been written into the statue and 
constitution. To pretend that the people have any part in 
this performance is nonsense, known as such to everyone 
who offers this pretense in defense of the present system of 
nominations." 

The convention system in theory is a perfect device as a 
form of representative government. It is a failure. Why? 
Its failure is in the practice. It does not represent the mem- 
bers of the party. If the convention represented the party 
voters, no one could find fault with the convention system. 
It is a perfect expression of the principles of representative 
government, but the delegates to the convention do not repre- 
sent the party voters. It does not express the popular will, 
but it does affect to express it. The delegates represent the 
bosses instead of the people. Everyone knows that of course. 
The wheels of the machine of the convention system work in 
perfect harmony. It is a good machine. The trouble is in 
applying the power to the main wheel in the gearing. The 
boss applies the power in the present system. If the people 
could apply the power, the system would be perfect. The 
system of party management is exactly like the system of 
representative government developed by the people and 
expressed in our constitutions. If the convention system is 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 179 

wrong, then representative government is all wrong. Con- 
ventions represent the members of the party, exactly as our 
officers in the Legislature and Congress represent the people. 
The defect is not in the system, but in the application of the 
system, in the application of the power necessary to run the 
system. The defect in our government is repeated in our 
party government. We cannot act in the government with- 
out parties; we cannot act in the party without a "party" 
within it. One wheel is geared onto another until we get to 
the real source of power. The "boss" is the party "within" 
the party. He is to the party what the party is to the State. 
As the boss must be destroyed to save the party system, so 
the party must be destroyed to save the State as a govern- 
ment by the people. 

The system expresses the will of those who run the 
system. We only need to substitute the people instead of 
the bosses. The bosses decide on who shall be the delegates 
and the party voters approve their choice. The delegates 
are the bosses' delegates by choice and the people's delegates 
by necessary approval. Now it is proposed by the new direct 
nominations law to substitute the nominating "committee" 
for the nominating "convention", and where would be the 
gain? The committee would be like the old "King Caucus". 
The committee would have absolute power in the choosing 
of candidates, for although the voters of the party could put 
up an opposition candidate, they would not take the trouble 
to do so, and if they did name a candidate he would not 
stand any chance of election. The whole delusion is in 
thinking that the voters will choose the committeemen 
"'directly". The committeemen will be proposed by peti- 
tions, but who will prepare and circulate those petitions? 
Those who can afford to do so — the politicians who are on 
the job, those who are interested in keeping control of the 
party organization. They will realize that to control the 



180 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

committee is to be the party. Now, what chance does the 
individual stand against the present committees, the present 
machine ? 

Governor Hughes says: 

"With exceptions almost negligible the people are di- 
vided for political purposes into two great parties. Action 
outside the parties is practically ineffective save as it may 
voice a protest." 

Mr. Hughes knows, or ought to know, that the commit- 
tee is worse than the convention. He has been nominated by 
two conventions of his party, but the State committee that 
would nominate him under the proposed law is against him 
and his proposed reform. The delegates at the convention 
wanted Hughes. The committee made up by these delegates 
do not want him. The committee gets farther away from the 
party voters than does the convention. If the committee is 
truly representative at the beginning, but is not instructed 
by the party voters, it will become a machine itself. If the 
individual members of the party, here and there, actually cir- 
culate petitions and thus succeed in choosing committeemen 
not proposed by the party organization, these few members 
of the committee will be but a few rough spots for the ma- 
chine to run over. They will soon be smoothed down into 
the party road under the roller of party necessity, and 
through their respectability they will become the main reli- 
ance of the machine. There is no use of letting the people 
approve what the committees do. Of course, they will have 
to approve it. The only remedy is to let them select the com- 
mittee or delegates, and not only to select them but to in- 
struct them what to do. 

This newspaper quotation says : "The bill aims to re- 
store directly to the people the power which is now exer- 
cised by the irresponsible heads of the party machines. " 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 181 

This is a mistaken conception. The people never had 
this power, and therefore it cannot be "restored" to them, 
and this bill does not entrust this power to them. This bill 
does not enable the people to initiate action, except by cir- 
culating a petition at their own expense. It lets them ap- 
prove the action of the committee, but it practically makes 
them approve by making it almost impossible for them to 
disapprove it. As Governor Hughes says, action outside of 
the organization is practically "negligible." 

The editor says again: "Shall we make our own nom- 
inations, after deliberation and discussion, or shall we con- 
tinue to permit them to be made for us without our previous 
consent, and often without our previous knowledge?" 

Shall we meet in parliamentary assemblies or shall we 
simply approve the choice of the committee, "after delibera- 
tion and discussion?" What chance is there for deliberation 
and discussion without actual meeting of the party voters ? 
We can discuss in our homes or on the street with our neigh- 
bors, and then we can go out, each one with a petition. Such 
a plan would give plenty of deliberation and some discussion, 
but we would not have time to do it. We would never be 
able to agree on whose petition we should sign even if we 
did not have one of our own. How shall we know that there 
will be any petition circulated, if we do not do it ourselves? 
How do we know who will want to sign our petition? How 
do we know whose names we can put on our petition for 
committeemen ? Shall I sit down and make out a list of com- 
mitteemen and then go out and ask a majority of the voters 
of my party to approve my judgment? Would it not be 
better to meet with them in parliamentary assembly and ex- 
press myself and let them express themselves? Perhaps they 
may have some suggestions that will be as valuable as my 
own. Perhaps they will not be willing to take the entire list 
that I make up. Why should I expect them to approve my 



i82 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

list any more than they should expect me to approve a list 
made up by any other member of my party? This govern- 
ment by petition makes bossism necessary. It makes it neces- 
sary for one man in a locality to set himself up as a judge for 
his party to select committeemen, and to go out and induce a 
majority of the members of the party to agree with him; and 
after all this trouble should he not have some reward, and will 
it be strange if the committeemen picked out by him shall be 
his personal friends who will remember him in their future 
work? Will not these committeemen represent the "patriot" 
who went around with the petition to have them made com- 
mitteemen rather than the "mere people" who were induced 
to sign the petition? We have heard about "Vest Pocket" 
delegates. This plan would make all our committeemen 
"Vest Pocket" committeemen. Every circulator of a peti- 
tion would be a vest pocket edition of Croker, Piatt, Wood- 
ruff or Connors. 

If I want an office I may be able to afford to go out with 
a petition, for I will be able to get my money back, but if I 
have no ambition for public life, can I afford to do this? 
For me to deliberately make up a list of committeemen and 
ask a majority of the members of my party to approve my 
choice, I would need to have more brass than a "government 
mule." 

There is only one way by which the voters can make 
their own selection of committeemen, and that is to have all 
the voters of the party meet face to face, in parliamentary 
assembly, where they can express themselves by an informal 
ballot "after deliberation and discussion." We shall never 
"make" our own nominations by approving the slate of the 
"committee". We could choose our own candidates in such 
a case about as much as we choose our parents. The waiter 
at the boarding house says : "We have pork and beans for 
dinner, what will you have?" and the boarder must say, "I 
will have beans and pork, if you please." 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 183 

The editor says : 

"If the people are in earnest in desiring their govern- 
ment to represent the popular will, they will eliminate the 
party convention as an incumbrance upon the expression of 
their purpose. Even in the old days when it was more truly 
representative, it could do nothing that the people could not 
do as well, acting directly for themselves." 

If they desire the government to represent their will 
they will eliminate party conventions, committees, bosses and 
parties themselves. Under the party system, the convention 
has been and is the only means by which the members of the 
party can express themselves. Without the conventions they 
will be at the mercy of the self-appointed bosses. Without 
the convention or committee there could be no party organ- 
ization. To denounce party conventions is to denounce par- 
ties altogether, for the convention is the most democratic way 
the party can express the wishes of its members. Without 
conventions the people "acting directly for themselves" could 
do absolutely nothing. The people must be organized to act. 
They have not been organized by the State, and parties have 
come to do it through conventions. If we entrust the power 
of the government to the people through the Parliamentary 
Assembly, they can express themselves, and parties will cease 
to be. The people act now under the yoke of party bossism. 
The organization of the people must be substituted for the 
organization of the party. 

Directing Nominations. 

The only way the voters can "direct" the nominations of 
the candidates is through the parliamentary assembly. 

There after "deliberation and discussion" they can ex- 
press their wishes by ballot. Such expressions will be direct. 
People can act directly or through delegates, but to approve 
the choice made by committees is not direct action. The 
choice of committeemen by petition is not direct action. It 



184 THE) WASHINGTON PARTY 

is direct to those having enough interest to circulate the peti- 
tions, and such will be the officeholders and those interested 
in controlling them. We want to direct our officers by de- 
claring our principles, that is why we vote for "party". But 
the only way to express ourselves on principles is through the 
assembly. Every "body" of men throughout the world meet 
face to face when it comes time to express themselves — 
everybody except the little groups of the American Democ- 
racy. 

The people have been taking no action. They could not 
act directly and their representatives have not acted for them. 
Ours has been a haphazard government, run on temporary 
expedients, for the benefit of those exercising the power of 
government. 

Under the proposed law, after the committee names the 
candidate, I may deliberate and discuss with myself whether 
I shall circulate a petition. If I decide to do so, I must 
"assemble" the people by going around from house to house 
to meet with them. Instead of having all the people come 
together, I must go to them one by one, and every other 
person must do the same. Suppose there are twenty men in 
my election district who do not like the choice of the com- 
mittee and are enough interested to circulate a petition, we 
shall have twenty men trying to get the voices of all the 
members of the party in that election district. It will be 
practically necessary to have twenty meetings of all the 
voters with each of these twenty men, and then the voters 
would not have a chance to express themselves ; and if all 
the people with these twenty men could meet together at one 
meeting, they could consider all the proposed petitions and 
could give perfect expression to their wishes. 

"Directed" Nominations. 
Now that the newspapers and statesmen are discussing 
nominations we are getting some truth told of the way nom- 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 185 

inations are made. Now it is made clear that our party con- 
ventions are farces. Everybody now knows that nomina- 
tions are dictated and directed by one man or by a few men, 
who have no thought of the people except to pull the wool 
over their eyes, to deceive them and get their support. 

If the convention of one thousand men, chosen from all 
parts of the State, chosen by the people and for a special pur- 
pose, sometimes instructed to do a certain thing, can be 
brought under the control of one man, what will become of 
a committee of smaller size, picked out a year before the 
time to nominate the candidates? If the convention listens to 
the Amen Corner, will not the committee do likewise? The 
same men that make up the convention will be on the commit- 
tee, and they will be there for the same purpose. Human 
nature is not going to be changed by passing a direct nomina- 
tions law. The committeemen will show the same disregard 
for the will of the people that the delegates to the conven- 
tion have shown. They say the committee will be restrained 
in its action by the knowledge that the people may not ap- 
prove its selection. The committee will know that the voters 
of the party will approve its selection. That is what mem- 
bers belong to the party for. If they are not going to follow 
the party leaders, what are they in the party for? And if 
they do not want the candidate proposed by the committee 
what will they do? What can they do? Why is the choice 
of the committee ever likely to be bad ? Why do we think it 
may not always do what is best for the party voters? Be- 
cause the choice is made by one man or by a few men, and 
the choice is made in the interest of the men by whom it is 
made. A few men possess, in the convention, the power of the 
voters of the whole State. This power is capable of being 
used to the advantage of these few men, and it is human 
nature for them to use it. And these same men, when put 
in similar circumstances, will always use power entrusted to 



186 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

them in the same way. A government by the few is for the 
few, and it cannot be otherwise. 

But the same objections will lie against the man who is 
picked out to be a candidate for nomination against the man 
suggested by the committee.. He will be chosen by one man 
or by a few men for selfish purposes. Piatt or Croker in the 
committee or out of the committee will be the same indi- 
vidual. The man to lead against the committee's choice must 
be "discovered", he must "announce" himself or he must be 
"found" by his friends. Some man or a few men acting 
together will just happen to know what the people want and 
will pick out an ideal candidate for them to approve instead 
of the one proposed by the committee. But why should these 
few who pick out an opposition candidate be any better than 
the members of the committee ? All the designing politicians 
are not going to get into the party committees, there will be 
a few left outside to take advantage of opportunities that get 
in the way. But, it may be said, all the people will have a 
chance to suggest a candidate. Sure, Mister Reader, you 
have as much "chance" to suggest a name as has Mr. Wood- 
ruff, or Mr. Murphy, but your suggestion will not "go". 
What is the difference? Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Murphy 
stand for the "organization", you stand for yourself. 

Senator Root says : "Organization will always over- 
come disorganization." You with several hundred thousand 
voters of the State are not organized. You represent "disor- 
ganization". Mr. Woodruff is at the head of a powerful or- 
ganization. In the State conventions there "appear" guides, 
leaders, statesmen, bosses. They will appear in the commit- 
tee, they must appear among the people if they are to suggest 
a candidate. How is this Moses of the people to appear? 
It is easy for Woodruff to get into contact with the members 
of the convention or the committee, and through the organ- 
ization he can come into some kind of contact with the mem- 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 187 

bers of the party throughout the State, but without "organ- 
ization" how would even Mr. Woodruff or Mr. Murphy, put 
his hand on the pulse of the people, how could he read their 
minds and pick out the candidates who would be their 
choice ? Mr. Murphy can lead the Democrats of Xew York 
because they follow "party" and vote "regular", but if he 
were outside the committee, would he be able to pick a can- 
didate with a magic name that would weld the voters of the 
party into one supporting mass ; and if he could do so, would 
it be the people who were acting or Mr. Murphy? If the 
people rule they must be organized. Organizing is ruling. 

The wire that connected the White House with the Chi- 
cago Convention "directed" the nomination and the plat- 
form of the Republican National Convention. The wire 
that connected Mr. Bryan with the Democratic Convention 
"directed" the proceedings of the Democratic National Con- 
vention. What would have been the difference if the action 
of the convention had to be approved by the members of 
each party, would there have been any opposition? Could 
there have been any successful opposition? 

When the State Committee meets in place of the State 
Convention, where will Murphy be, and where will Wood- 
ruff be? The Democratic politicians have made up 
the Democratic convention. Who will make up the 
Democratic State Committee under the proposed nomina- 
tions law? Probably the men will be Democratic politicians 
too. If they take directions from Mr. Murphy when they 
are the Convention, shall they cease to listen to him when 
they become the "Committee"? Will they be afraid that the 
"people" will not approve their choice? Don't they know 
what the people of their party can do if they do not want to 
approve their choice? Why, they can organize a machine 
within the machine to beat the machine and yet not be a 
machine? When the Republican State Committee meets will 



188 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Woodruff cease to direct ? When the Monroe County Com- 
mittee meets, where will Aldridge be? When the Erie 
County Democracy assembles as the "Committee" where will 
Connors be? At the helm you may be sure. We have had 
"directed" nominations under the convention system, and 
they will continue to be "directed" under the committee sys- 
tem, and the "people" will follow directions. When the 
medicine is ladled out to them according to "directions" they 
will not refuse the dose. 

What Is the Difference ? 
We now have all that Governor Hughes asks for. He 
wants the people to choose committeemen by petition, and 
then vote for them at the primaries. That he calls "direct" 
action. We now do the same, we vote for the party commit- 
teemen at the primary and also for the delegates to choose 
candidates. Our present method is as direct as the one he 
proposes. His plan is to make the nomination of committee- 
men by petition. Now the committee proposes the names of 
the new committee that the voters approve, but the voters can 
also propose other names and vote for them without even 
getting up a petition. The voters can put in any one they 
choose for committeemen, any one they choose for delegates. 
They do not do it of course, because they would have to go 
to the trouble of ascertainig the wishes of a majority of the 
district by going through the district and talking with the 
voters. Some one individual must take it upon himself to 
organize the voters and to express their wishes in the form 
of a ticket containing the names of the committeemen whom 
they want. Then these committeemen are candidates against 
those named by the regular party committee. There is not 
much chance for the irregulars to win, and if they do win 
they will have to act alone when they get to the convention. 
The difficulty the voters now have of organizing themselves 
in opposition to the party machine candidates for committee- 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 189 

men and delegates would be met in the plan to have commit- 
teemen nominated by petition and then approved at the pri- 
mary. The machine could easily prepare a petition, the same 
as they now prepare the slate, and the voters would have to 
prepare the slate just exactly as they do now. They do not 
do it, and they would not do it. The party committee would 
name the new committee, and the voters would approve the 
choice just as they do now. And who can give any reason 
why they would not do so? We can give a reason why they 
would do so, and that is, that they do so now. Under the 
proposed plan the committees would be chosen just as the 
delegates are now chosen. 

The committees would name candidates, but could not 
nominate them. No, the voters must do that, and that is what 
makes it "direct" nomination. But the voters will approve 
the choice of the committee, for what else can they do? The 
voters now approve the choice of the party committee for 
delegates without any protest. Why would they not ap- 
prove the choice of the committee under the new plan as they 
do under the old? If the voters of the party do not like the 
men suggested by the committee, whom can they vote for? 
Oh, they can vote for any one they wish, just as they do now. 
But how can they agree on candidates, without calling a con- 
vention of some kind to ascertain the wishes of the people? 
A boss within the committee suggests a candidate, then some 
boss outside of the committee may suggest another candi- 
date, and then the people can fight it out between these two. 
Does this give the "people" any choice? It gives them a 
choice to say "yes" to what the committee does, but it gives 
them no chance to take affirmative action. 

After the committee makes its suggestion the people 
may approve their action. If the people do not want to ap- 
prove, they must organize themselves for united action to 
disapprove it. What plan does the new bill propose for such 



190 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

organization for the people? Nothing. They can act now 
if they can organize themselves in opposition to the bosses. 
Senator Root said: "Organization will always overcome 
disorganization/' The bosses control because the voters of 
the party cannot organize themselves, and any attempt to 
mitigate the evils of boss control through committees or 
other devices, is futile. The organization of the people is 
the one essential thing to be considered. 

We now vote direct for committeemen and delegates. 
If we are not able to choose good delegates from neighbors 
whom we know, how shall we be able to choose good govern- 
ors and other officers from among people we do not know? 
Direct voting is of no account unless we have the right man 
to vote for. As long as the people can take their choice be- 
tween the candidates of the two great parties, what choice 
can they be said to have in selecting their officers? When 
they can take their choice between a candidate suggested by 
the committee and a candidate suggested by somebody who 
is "interested" enough to take the trouble, who has selfish 
interests enough to pay him for taking the trouble, some- 
body who for the purpose of giving the voters a chance to 
vote must constitute himself a boss outside of the organiza- 
tion, can the people be said to have any choice in their candi- 
dates ? 

"Suggestion." The committee can suggest, and the 
voters can approve or — . Yes, they can approve or let the 
other members of the party approve. If those who think the 
man suggested is unfit, refuse to vote for him, the thought- 
less and indifferent will go to the polls and approve the com- 
mittee's choice. The members of the party are used to voting 
with the party, not against it, and the name "suggested" will 
bear the marks of authority and will receive approval. All 
the reformers admit that an individual cannot beat the ma- 
chine, and yet they propose to make it necessary for some 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 191 

individual to circulate a petition and organize the people in 
opposition to the committee and beat the machine, and they 
seem to think that any individual can do this because the 
people can vote "direct" for the candidates proposed. They 
cannot see through the fog of "direct nominations" to the 
clear mountains of the "parliamentary assembly." Instead 
of calling it "direct" nominations, let us call it "directed" 
nominations, directed by the "committee", which would be 
more arbitrary than any convention ; if not directed by the 
committee, then directed by some self-appointed boss who 
assumes to speak for the members of his party. The re- 
formers provide no means for the people to express them- 
selves, but seem to think if they do not like the man nomi- 
nated by the committee, they can all agree on some one man 
to vote for in place of the one named by the committee. If 
they can do this, then why have any committee? Or why 
any nomination? Let them go to the polls and vote for the 
man they can agree upon by this wonderful psychological 
process. When the committee is under the control of a boss 
and makes bad nominations, then the Godess of Liberty 
comes down to warn the people and puts into their minds the 
name of a candidate who will be acceptable to the people ! 

Governor Hughes. 

Governor Hughes said at Brooklyn: "Our experience 
shows that the delegate system places power in the hands of 
the few who make a business of politics. It offers no fair 
opportunity to the ordinary citizen who is hard at zcork 
securing a livelihood and who has no time to devote to the 
fortunes of those who are seeking to build up an organization 
for political control." 

Yes, it is plain to all who think of the matter that the 
delegate system, the convention system, places power in the 
hands of the few who make a business of politics. And in 
place of the convention of delegates what does the Governor 



i 9 2 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

propose? He gives us a committee of delegates, at least a 
committee of men/ if they are not "delegates" they are 
bosses or masters. "Delegate" seems to have become a word 
expressing an "undesirable citizen," but the man whom we 
choose to act for us is our delegate or he is our king, he 
represents us or he supplants us. If the committee shall not 
be our "delegates" then they will be nothing to us, but a 
"house of lords" over us. The delegate system places power 
in the hands of the few. The State convention is made up 
of about nine hundred delegates, but the proposed committee 
would have at most one hundred fifty members. So the 
"committee" system would place the power in the hands of 
the fewest "who make a business of politics." Those who 
make a business of politics become our delegates. Of course, 
that is their business. Who will become our committeemen? 
Those who make a business of politics, to be sure. How can 
a man become a committeeman if he does not make a busi- 
ness of politics ? Those who are in politics for business will 
make it their business to get on the committees. 

The delegate or convention system offers no opportun- 
ity "to the ordinary citizen who is hard at work securing a 
livelihood." What opportunity does the committee system 
offer to the man who is hard at work to make a living ? The 
man who has to work can no more be a delegate to the State 
convention that makes nominations than he can be a member 
of the State committee that would make nominations. If 
the man hard at work wants to get himself elected to the 
committee he will find it a harder task than that of being 
elected to the convention, and he will find it more satisfac- 
tory to keep "hard at work" securing a livelihood rather 
than keeping hard at work trying to beat those who make a 
business of politics. 

The convention system offers no opportunity to the 
man who has to work hard and "has no time to devote to 






DIRECT NOMINATIONS 193 

the fortunes of those who are seeking to build up an organ- 
ization for political control," but will the man who has to 
work hard have time to circulate a petition throughout the 
state to select the candidate he wants for office? Will he 
have time and money "to build up an organization for polit- 
ical control ?" And under the proposed law, if he does not 
build up such an organization within his party, what chance 
has he of having his wishes expressed in the nomination of a 
candidate? If the man suggested by the committee does not 
suit the man who has to work hard, what can the laborer 
do? "Build up an organization for political control," circu- 
late a petition and secure signers to get the name of the man 
he wants on the primary ballot, and go over the state and 
point out to the people the superiority of his candidate, and 
get enough votes for his candidate to beat those who have 
made a business of politics and who have built up an organ- 
ization for political control. Oh, it is a cinch for the man 
who has to work hard for a livelihood ; surely the bosses will 
tremble when they hear of his going out in the cool of the 
day, after his hard work, to circulate a petition and to build 
up an organization for political control to defeat them. Yea, 
they will shake with laughter. 

The Governor says: "Who make the party nomina- 
tions ? Not the party, but a few active men whose followers 
have the discipline of an army." 

Under the proposed law, who will make the party nom- 
inations? The nomination will be made by "a few active 
men whose followers have the discipline of an army," or by 
some individual who appoints himself the Master of the 
people, circulates his petition for his own nomination or for 
that of some friend, builds up an organization and defeats 
those "whose followers have the discipline of an army." 

Mr. Hughes says "Not the party" makes the nomina- 
tions, but a few men. By the party he means the members 



i 9 4 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

of the party as a whole. Indeed they do not make the nom- 
inations, and never shall make the party nominations as long 
as they are quarantined from meeting in parliamentary as- 
semblies to express themselves. But the organization of the 
disciplined army will make the party nominations, until par- 
ties are destroyed. Oh, under the proposed "direct" nomina- 
tions law the nominations will be made by "the ordinary citi- 
zen who is hard at work securing a livelihood. " He will 
make the nominations for his party by securing names to his 
petition when he is out of work. Ah, a new idea ! Let those 
who are hard at work stay at work, and let those out of work 
circulate petitions ; and if all those out of work begin to cir- 
culate petitions, the "few active men whose followers have 
the discipline of an army" will take to the woods. Whom 
will the citizen with spare time put on his petition for candi- 
date? Why, somebody out of work, preferably himself, for 
a man who will go around with a petition to let the voter ex- 
press his choice ought to have an office. 

The Governor says : "And the key to this power is that 
opportunity to control nominations which is afforded by our 
present method." 

Under the present method voters of the party vote "di- 
rectly" for delegates at their primaries. These delegates 
make the nominations or choose other delegates who make 
the nominations. Now, it is known and admitted by all that 
a few bosses control nominations. The present method 
affords such opportunity. The delegates are chosen "di- 
rectly" by the party voters, but they are controlled by the 
bosses in some way that the bosses have of getting what they 
want. Now, what opportunity does the new plan afford? 
Instead of selecting "directly" 900 delegates who make the 
nomination, the party voters select at most 150 committee- 
men "directly", who will suggest candidates for the party 
voters to approve. A suggestion will be equivalent to a nom- 






DIRECT NOMINATIONS 195 

ination, for what chance does an individual who announces 
himself as a candidate, stand in opposition to the candidate 
suggested by the party committee? If the bosses can control 
the action of 900 delegates can they not much 
easier control the action of 150 committeemen? The 
new method affords a better opportunity to control 
nominations than our present method. But you sav 
under the present law the delegates are picked out by the 
bosses and the people merely approve the choice ! Truly, 
under the proposed law the committeemen would be picked 
out by the petitions of the bosses and the voters would merely 
approve their choice. If I, as the boss, make up a list of the 
men I want for delegates, and have the voters approve my 
choice, do I control nominations any more than if I make up 
a list of committeemen and have the voters approve my 
choice by signing my petition ? The voters will sign my peti- 
tion without question just as readily as they will go to the 
"direct" primary now and vote like monkeys for my "dele- 
gates". But the voters do not have to approve the sugges- 
tion of my committee ! No, they may vote directly for the 
candidate suggested by a petition of somebody. I control the 
name suggested by the committee the same as I now control 
the name suggested by the convention. The man who starts 
a petition for a candidate controls the nomination of that can- 
didate if he is nominated. He controls him, for he makes 
him. If I get a man nominated by circulating a petition, is it 
not likely that I will control the nomination? Now, where 
does control by the people come in? When "I" control the 
committee instead of the convention, or when "I" circulate a 
petition and have my man nominated, do "I" control, or do 
the "people" rule? When we make it necessary for one man 
to circulate a petition to secure the election of a candidate, we 
make personal, individual control of the candidate a necessity 
and a certainty. Now it is possible for one man to control, 



196 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

then it will be necessary for one to control. Now bossism 
creeps out as a fungus growth of our system, then it will 
be the whole tree: now it is an incident, then it will be a 
definite arrangement established by law. As Speaker Wads- 
worth says, it will be statutory boss rule. 

Governor Hughes says : "The evil is plain enough : the 
wretched failure of the convention system is obvious enough ; 
and the question is, what shall be done? 

"The answer is : Give the party voters a chance to nom- 
inate the candidates ; transfer the power in no uncertain way 
to the party members ; make them the final arbiters of party 
nominations. " 

The failure is "plain enough." The failure of the pro- 
posed "committee" system would be more obvious than the 
failure of the "Convention System," for a committee respon- 
sible to those who circulated the petitions by which they were 
made committeemen would be as subservient as the conven- 
tion of delegates chosen by the party voters. There would 
not be much difference, the men would be the same but their 
meetings would have different names. 

"Give the party voters a chance to nominate the candi- 
dates." That is the remedy. But how is it proposed to give 
the voter a chance to nominate the candidates ? He can say 
"yes" to the names proposed by the "committee", or he can 
say "yes" to the names proposed by some individual who has 
been interested enough to circulate a petition throughout the 
state at his own expense. He can approve the choice of the 
regular party boss or of some jealous rival party boss, or be- 
come a party boss himself if he is able to organize a machine 
throughout the State. That is the "chance", and the only 
chance, the Governor proposes to give the party voters. 

"Make them (the voters) the final arbiters of party nom- 
inations." Make them rather the "initial instigators" instead 
of the "final arbiters." After the committee has made its 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 197 

"suggestion", dictated to it by the boss, it is too late for the 
party voter to act. He must say "yes"' to the decision of the 
committee's boss, or he must do the impossible. He must 
prepare a petition and defy the machine, and Mr. Hughes 
says of such action : "Action outside these parties is prac- 
tically ineffective save as it may voice a protest." 

Give the party voters a chance to nominate the candi- 
dates by letting the voters meet in parliamentary assemblies 
where they CAN express their choice of candidates, and then 
not only the boss of parties but parties themselves shall cease 
to trouble us. 

"The time to end strife is at the beginning." The 
politicians know this, and it is ended at the beginning for 
them by not letting the people "meet". The rule will work 
the other way. Let the people end the strife by meeting at 
the beginning — at the parliamentary assembly. 

The Governor says again : "Under the Hinman-Green 
bill the party committees have no right to nominate. It is 
the party voters alone who by their direct vote at the pri- 
maries make the nomination. The choice lies with them 
absolutely. Party committees may suggest and the party 
voters may approve or disapprove as they please. The party 
voters may themselves directly suggest candidates by peti- 
tion, and the decision is made at the primary election." 

Why is there so much talk about "direct" vote at the 
primaries ? What other kind of votes can be cast at the pri- 
maries but "direct"? Perhaps it sounds nice to the "people" 
to whom the "appeal" is made. 

Under this bill the committees do practically nothing. 
No, the party voters do it all. Did you ever see a battleship 
launched ? The pretty girl who breaks the bottle of wine on 
the ship's prow does it all. The men who worked for months 
shaping the great iron ribs did nothing, they merely put it 
together. They have no right to name the boat. The choice 



198 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

of the name lies with the girl. She breaks the bottle and 
says "Missouri", and I would like to have you show me the 
difference between the girl naming the battleship and the 
party voters naming the candidate. There is the battleship 
and there is the work of the committee. Now, what are you 
going to do, young lady, name the boat or not? What are 
you going to do, Mr. Voter, say "yes" to the name the com- 
mittee has proposed or not ? 

'The choice lies with them absolutely." What "choice" 
lies with them? Why, the choice between the candidate 
"suggested" by the committee and nothing. There is no 
choice. The voter has the prisoner's choice at dinner ; there 
is the "bill of fare" on his tin plate, he can eat that or not, 
the "choice" lies with him "absolutely". 

The voter has the choice of voting for the man sug- 
gested by the committee or of going over the State w r ith a 
petition to get signers to entitle him to have his candidate 
on the ticket. If he has plenty of time and plenty of money 
he may be able to have a chance to vote for the man he 
wants, and the next voter has the same chance. 

The committee has no right to nominate, only to sug- 
gest. But the suggestion will be equivalent to a nomination. 
The politicians will be on the committee and will work 
through the committee. Men who have ambition for public 
office will look to the committee for a "suggestion", and if 
they fail to get that, they will not go into the fight with a 
petition. The petition will be for kickers. The committee 
will not name a man who will be so obnoxious to the party 
voters that they will want to take the trouble to propose 
another candidate by petition. The voters, in fact, will know 
nothing about most of the candidates proposed by the com- 
mittee. 

Our officers are not actually taken from the state prison, 
as we may think to listen to some of them talk about the 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 199 

others. They are mostly men who would rather do right 
than do wrong, but they would rather be successful than be 
right. It is not what they are morally but what they do that 
brings down our criticism. They become spokes in the 
wheel of the party machine, and they must go round with the 
wheel. The convention, the committee, the petitioners, will 
all be "practical men," they will all fit into their places in 
the machine. The man who thinks we are going to keep 
the party machine, and yet not have it run by machinisl 
not know party history or human nature. 

As long as the members of the party cannot meet, ; 
will be governed by a few members of the party who can 
meet. The state does not provide for the meeting of the 1 
of the people. The few who are in politics for business can 
provide means of their own for meeting, they are governing 
themselves and the people too. The few, here and there, 
who see the opportunity to secure control of the party will 
do so; such control will give them opportunities to plunder 
the people for private gain, and having become used to tak- 
ing advantage of opportunities, public office is for them a 
private snap. 

But why all this wrangle over the candidates? It is 
not the men but the way they are nominated that concerns 
us most. The man who is nominated by the convention is 
responsible to the convention ; the man who is nominated, 
suggested, by the committee, is responsible to the commit- 
tee ; the man who is nominated by a petition, is responsible 
to the man who pays for circulating the petition, and none 
of them are responsible to the people. The suggestion 
should not come down from the committee to the voters, 
but should come up from the voters to their delegates or 
representatives on the committee. At the parliamentary 
caucus of the people, the people can express themselves ; 
but to ask them to approve or disapprove the "suggestion" 



200 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

of a committee, is an insult to a man who is conscious of 
his right to self-government. 

Motive. 

It has been asked by friends of the proposed so-called 
direct nominations bill why the bosses are opposed to it if it 
gives them as much control of the party machinery as they 
now have. That is a good question, and there are some 
good answers to it. Chairman Woodruff says that he and 
some others of the so-called bosses have money enough to 
silence the cry that they want to make money out of politics. 
They have ambitions as well as those who are called re- 
formers. Mr. Woodruff is a millionaire, and is in politics 
i »r about the same reason that Governor Hughes is, and 
that is that he likes the work. Mr. Woodruff and some 
others of the same class are honorable men with worthy am- 
bitions, and all do not think alike. The State Chairman 
feels it an honor to fill that position, and should he not prop- 
erly object to being cast out of his position to the loss of 
his honor and pleasant associations, by some other politician 
who he considers is actuated by no higher motive than 
himself? Why should Mr. Woodruff listen to Mr. Hughes 
practically say to him : "You are running this machine like 
a chump, get away, and let me show you how to run it, I 
know." If the new plan is no better than the old, no one 
should want it adopted. And if the new plan would give 
the bosses more power than the old system, they would not 
want it adopted and thrust down their throats with the state- 
ment that they must take it. They are sensitive even if they 
are bosses. They have personal pride and ambition. They 
are leaders, and they will not be led if they can lead. If 
Governor Hughes could be shown that some other man 
would be a better Governor, would he resign? Hardly. 

If the party committees are such wonderful geniuses 
for expressing the will of the people that it is proposed to 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 201 

give them the power to practically name candidates, why 
does not the Governor have this proposed law threshed out 
by the State Committee of his party, the committee that 
under the bill would write the platform and make nomina- 
tions ? 

There may be others besides Woodruff who are incon- 
sistent. Instead of counseling with the party committee, the 
Governor rushes into the limelight with a proposition that 
they must accept, and then he wonders why they do not ap- 
prove it. Why does he not practice with them what he says 
he wants them to practice? Is not a State Convention as 
good a place to hatch schemes and ambitions as the Execu- 
tive Chamber at Albany? Mr. Hughes says he wants the 
members of the party to control the party. Well, they seem 
to be doing it pretty well, and should he wonder if they ob- 
ject to his doing it when they suspect him of having designs 
to destroy the party? We may be willing to divide our 
bread with our brother ; but when our half-brother comes 
along and tells us to give him the whole loaf, it would be 
human nature to object. 

Why does a toad hop? Because he is a hop-toad. 
When does a toad hop? Did you ever watch a toad? He 
will sit perfectly still, and then all at once he will hop, quick 
as a wink. For a time he is as dead. What is the psycho- 
logical explanation of his sudden electric-like hop? 

The law that permitted race track gambling was in 
force under Governor Morton, there was no hop. It was in 
force under Governor Black, Governor Roosevelt, Governor 
Odell, and Governor Higgins, and no hop. It was in force 
the first year of Governor Hughes' administration, and still 
no hop. The Constitution was all right. Mr. Hughes was 
nominated for Governor, and the Constitution was all right. 
In the exciting campaign of 1906, the Constitution was all 
right. BUT last year it was time to hop. Then the Constitu- 



202 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

tion was in the gutter. The legislature had to be called for a 
special session, a special election had to be called to furnish 
an extra vote for his side. The bill passed last year was all 
right. But it would have been all right the year before or 
any year before. Why that suddenness ? 

We have been going along with conventions nominating 
governors, even Governor Hughes was nominated by a con- 
vention. That was all right. Last year even a convention 
was all right, but now, just now, s-p-1-a-s-h, the Governor 
goes into the politician's pan of fresh milk. Now, just now, 
the convention is all wrong. Now, just now, we must have 
a "committee" instead of a "convention". It is only a change 
in name. We will have the same men on the committees 
that we have in the convention, and their motives will be the 
same, but it will be the "committee" instead of the "conven- 
tion", therefore hop. 

Let us hope in jumping into the politicians' pan of milk 
he shall not be overcome with the cream, but that like the 
frog put with the water into the can of milk, he may kick 
and keep on kicking, till the cream is churned into butter, 
and he sits on top of the roll of butter in the can, while the 
politicians drink off the "skimmed" milk. And this roll of 
butter will be labeled "Parliamentary Assemblies of all the 
People." 

The so-called direct nominations bill is simply a dis- 
turber to the politicians. It attracts the attention of the 
people to the method of the party, and that is bad, very bad. 
The politicians have plenty of power now, and a new system, 
even if it should give them more power, would not be wise 
for them to approve, for it would make the people think. 
Attention to party method is the entering wedge that will 
split the party tree, and that is the reason the politicians do 
not want the "Direct" nominations bill. 



DIRECT NOMINATIONS 203 

As to the merits of the bill, if it were proposed by a 
leading politician, or by the State Committee, it would be de- 
nounced without mercy, but when it comes in the dress of 
"reform" it comes into the fold as the wolf in sheep's cloth- 
ing, and that is the objection true reformers have to the bill. 
It pretends to be what it is not, it says it will do what it can- 
not do. If the politicians were truly wise in this matter they 
would accept the bill, grudgingly and with wry faces, and 
then laugh up their sleeves. Such a course would fool the 
people richly. They would think they had secured the 
panacea for their ills, and would be willing to let the "com- 
mittee" manage their affairs for years to come. They would 
be sent to sleep by the sweet smelling incense of "direct 
nominations". Yea, they would slumber. 

We do not want the people to be hypnotized with the 
word "direct" printed over the word "machine" on the ma- 
chine. And that is our motive for distrusting a bill that may 
give a little temporary relief. We want the disease cured, 
we want the serpent destroyed instead of baptized with a 
new name and the same nature. 






204 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER XV. 

GOVERNMENT BY PETITION. 
How It Will Work. 

A man comes around with a petition for me to sign to 
nominate certain men. Shall I sign it? I don't know who 
else will be around with other petitions, and cannot tell which 
one I will want to sign. Shall I sign the first one? How 
can I tell whether any one else will start a petition? What 
shall I do if I like some of the men proposed and not the 
others? Shall I start out with a petition myself? 

In the parliamentary assembly I can get up and nom- 
inate my candidates, and ask those people present to sign my 
petition. Others can do likewise. All those who want to 
present petitions can do so without trouble. Then 1 will 
know what petitions can be signed and will know which one 
I want to sign. The people by informal ballot can designate 
what names they want on their petition. They can make up 
a list from the names presented by all the petitioners, or nom- 
inations, that will be different from any one of the lists. No 
man will be put to expense. Each one will be acting intelli- 
gently in the light of day. There will be no buttonholing and 
bribing to sign petitions. 

Government by petition ! Let us pray. "The effectual 
fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." 

We pray to some authority higher than ourselves for 
favors. 

We do not petition for our rights, we demand them. 

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States says Congress shall make no law abridging "the right 
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the gov- 
ernment for a redress of grievances. " 

It is inferred from this that the people have a natural 
"right" to assemble in order to prepare their petition, for 



GOVERNMENT BY PETITION 205 

how could they get up a petition without assembling? Let 
the people pray, but let them agree in their prayers or their 
political "Gods" will not be able to understand their prayers. 
The Constitution "guarantees'' the right of the people 
to assemble to petition. Should it not secure the right of the 
people to assemble to petition? It is now proposed to make 
the people get into parties and petition for what they want, 
and not let them assemble to prepare their petitions, but make 
each one go over the country at his own expense with pen 
and ink in hand and get the signatures of those who agree 
with him. 

Assemble. 

"Congress shall assemble once in every year, etc." Each 
State legislature assembles. Every city council, board of 
county supervisors, every body of men that has any action to 
take, assembles. It is natural, it is the only way die people 
composing the societies can act. The parts together make 
the whole. The most learned court, the United States Su- 
preme Court, consisting of only nine men must get together 
to come to a decision on any question ; but the dear people, 
some of whom cannot read, can come to a conclusion on any 
question without any consultation whatever. They can just 
go into the voting booth, say nothing, and vote on the same 
proposition or for the same candidate that several hundred 
thousand others are going to vote for. It has sometimes 
taken the legislature of the State of New York several days 
to agree on a United States Senator, but the people of the 
whole State are supposed to be able to agree on a man for 
Governor by simply going into a booth one by one and cast- 
ing a ballot. Is it not marvelous ? 

How natural is the proposition we make ! Every body 
of people who have a common object meet if there are not too 
many of them. When there are too many to eat at one table 
we have tw r o tables. Now, when there are too many people 



206 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

to meet, let us divide them into groups, into classes, and let 
the groups or classes meet. We can add, and so we can 
count up the votes of all the people when they meet in little 
assemblies just as if they all met in one large assembly. 
How could the f ramers have overlooked this simple plan ? 

Nomination by Petition. 
It is proposed to have the party committee chosen by 
petition. The men that are now the organization would be 
interested in maintaining their hold. They have the office 
details in their hands, and it would be an easy matter for 
them to circulate petitions and have themselves chosen. 
They are in office and are feeding at the public crib. But 
what can the people outside do? They cannot circulate 
petitions successfully against the machine. The people have 
their own business to attend to. They have no direct per- 
sonal interest in who shall be on the committee, and they 
will not put themselves to great expense and trouble for 
something that does not benefit them. "What is every- 
body's business is nobody's business." The choice of the 
committee is the "business" of the committee. Those inter- 
ested in maintaining the organization for graft will circulate 
the petition. The other people cannot afford to do so. 
What concern is it to you who is on the committee ? If you 
want anything to say about who shall be on the committee, 
you must circulate a petition at great expense ; and so every 
one else who wishes to express himself must start out with a 
petition. Each one must be a little "party" by himself, 
working against the established party, which the law puts us 
under and makes us subservient to. We must bow to the 
will of the party leaders, or go to all the trouble that the law 
can map out for us. The parties are organized. Instead of 
the State organizing the people to act, it proposes to dis- 
organize them, to make them act individually, and thus ac- 
tually prevent their organization. Under such law the rule 
of the parties will be absolute. 



GOVERNMENT BY PETITION 207 

Right to Petition. 

The State Constitution guarantees the right of the 
people to assemble and petition the government, but their 
petition need not be heard. They can ask for a fish and be 
given a stone. Now let their prayers be answered, if they 
ask for a loaf give them a loaf. The direct primary law 
that proposes to make the people nominate their party com- 
mitteemen by petition, should let the people nominate com- 
mitteemen in the same way and should let them meet to 
prepare their petitions, for it is only by meeting that they 
can do so. The politicians have their meetings and prepare 
their petitions, and it is necessary that the people have the 
same opportunity. 

If we must petition the government, shall we not have 
the right to assemble to do it. We pay the parties for hold- 
ing their primaries and preparing their petitions. Shall w( 
not pay the people for holding their assemblies? We dc 
actually pay the parties for conducting their primaries, and 
President Roosevelt in a message to Congress asked that 
they pay national campaign expenses. If we do not wan/ 
to vote for the men whom the parties nominate, we must 
nominate candidates by securing a certain number of peti- 
tioners. Who is going to the expense of circulating peti- 
tions to get a candidate, knowing beforehand that there is 
no chance of his election ? If the people rule they must pay 
for it, but the politicians are paid for ruling the people. If 
we have to beat the "machine" by circulating petitions, 
ruling will be expensive business for us. There will always 
be enough interest on the part of political leaders to induce 
them to circulate petitions. In the last campaign the Repub- 
lican National Committee spent over $1,500,000, and if they 
have that much money to spend it is absolutely certain that 
they are going to have their machine oiled "right". 



208 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

They will circulate petitions for committeemen that 
the}- can depend on to help spend that money and to collect 
more. The more money it takes to run the machine, the 
more the machine must make out of the people, so Mr. 
Roosevelt's proposition to pay the parties outright and be 
done with it may be wise. Instead of letting the politicians 
put their hands into the treasury, and take out the money, 
let us open the door and tell them to help themselves ; they 
will be honest then. 

But the people have not enough interest in the election 
to circulate a petition. If I pay one hundred dollars tax 
that I ought not to pay, it is cheaper to keep on paying the 
tax than it is to go all over the State of New York with a 
petition. But it may be said others are paying that tax and 
they can help me circulate the petition. That is the argu- 
ment. They could help me circulate it if we could work 
together, if we could meet at a public meeting, if we 
could have a parliamentary assembly. Only the men who 
have an interest in the election will circulate petitions, and 
only those who have a good prospect of getting something 
out of the election can afford to circulate them. The poli- 
ticians can afford to prepare petitions, because they can filch 
their pay out of the treasury, but how is an honest man to 
circulate a petition? Government by petition is despotism, 
and those who propose such government are despots or they 
have not sufficiently considered the matter. 

Why is it that the best men are not in politics, that our 
officers are mostly bad men. Good men cannot get into 
politics, unless they have the pass word, and that they can 
only get by giving up their self-respect. "Graft" is the word 
that one repeats to the other. It is their guide into office 
and while they are in office. The man who cannot graft is a 
poor workman in the politician's orchard. If an honest man 
gets into office he is soon converted or else he is held up as 



GOVERNMENT BY PETITION 209 

a wonder and made much of to deceive the people and make 
them think that the politicians are really putting honest men 
in office. Good men are not chosen for office, because good 
men do not choose them. The fruit is like the tree from 
which it comes. If only those who have selfish interests to 
conserve pick out our officers, our officers will be well in- 
structed in selfish interests. If our candidates are nomi- 
nated in the back room of a saloon, we need not think they 
are going to close the side door. Because there are so many 
incompetent and dishonest public men, many young men are 
deterred from entering the public service, they feel that they 
are getting into bad company. The same feeling of self- 
respect that keeps men out of saloons and dives keeps them 
out of caucuses and out of public office. If the caucus 
were made respectable, if the people could meet to expr 
themselves as to their government, it would seem that these 
assemblies would be attended by the best class of citizens. 
There are no meetings held that would be so inviting. Some 
good people go to church, but all good people would go to 
these meetings. Xow, if we want to get good men into the 
government service, we must get good men into the cau- 
cuses, and we must get them there by letting the people at 
the caucus have the chance to express themselves. 

Shall the People Rule? 

"Vox populi, Vox Dei". The voice of the people is 
the voice of God. but if the voice of the people is not heard, 
then God speaketh not. 

Shall the people rule? Shall trees grow? What is 
there higher than man, who has dominion over all things ? 
The people do rule of course. 

In Russia some of the people rule. The people rule, but 
who are the people? What is the difference between Russia 
and the United States ? 



210 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Assuming that all men are created to take part in their 
government, we may ask "Shall they take their part, or shall 
their part be taken by someone else or by some other 
agency?" All men are created equal in their right to self- 
government. Shall they all exercise their right? 

The king says "I am the State." Shall it be said "We 
are the State?" 

We are told that this is a government of the people, by 
the people and for the people. We are also told that political 
parties are necessary. When we see what parties do and 
have done, we see, if they are necessary, they are necessary 
evils. 

It used to be necessary to have kings and nobles, now it 
is necessary to have parties. When shall the people rule? 
Our Constitutions, State and National, and our laws say 
"We, the people of the United States, or the State of New 
York, etc., do, etc." Shall we write in place of "the people" 
the words "the parties"? 

It is proposed to change our laws so that the parties 
shall rule, so that if the people want to appear to be ruling, 
they must get into a party. Shall the rule of the parties be 
made absolute, or shall the government be entrusted to the 
hands of the people? 

If something is necessary to rule the people, then the 
people -cannot and do not rule. But whatever is, is neces- 
sary, till it is destroyed. Parties must be destroyed, then 
the people shall rule. They shall begin to rule by destroy- 
ing parties, or they shall begin to be ruled by being driven 
into the cage of parties. 

The people can rule. A boy can eat an orange, if he 
can get it. 

Party is the monster that stands at the entrance to the 
temple of government and swallows the people as they 
approach. Let the people advance, it is their privilege. Let 



GOVERNMENT BY PETITION 211 

all avenues of approach be closed. Open the gate of "direct 
nominations'" and "direct primaries'', direct into the cavern- 
ous maw of "party", and let the people come forward, and 
after being digested and absorbed into the sinew of the 
dragon, "political organization", they shall rule. 

Direct primaries ! The only thing direct about them 
is the way in which the boss or committee tells the voters 
what delegates or candidates to vote for. The word comes 
"direct" and the people follow the word, and the word is 
made law and it is the law, thus saith the law. 

Direct nominations ! The nominations are made by the 
committee, and then the people are "directed" to choose the 
candidates named or to go out at their own expense and 
make up a slate and beat the organization at their own game. 
if possible. It is a direct insult to the intelligence of the 
people. 

If the people are to rule, the voice must come up from 
the people and not be directed downward from the boss or 
committee. The people can express themselves only face to 
face in actual meetings of the people. Let all the people of 
a small district meet as a parliamentary body, and let them 
express their choice of delegates, candidates and principles. 
This parliamentary assembly of the people is the primary 
thing, the only way in which the people can give direct ex- 
pression to their wishes. Instead of the dragon of party at 
the entrance to the temple of state, we shall have the people 
assembled in the temple, and then the voice of the people 
will be the voice of God. 

What is the constitution of society ? What are the prin- 
ciples that hold it together, that make up society, what are 
the rules by which it is governed? We can see nothing 
above man, except himself and God. There is no exterior 
force, and the rules and principles by which men are gov- 
erned, are found within themselves. People are gregarious, 



212 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

they love company. If this were not so, there would be no 
permanent state. State is family written large. Besides the 
state, there are many clubs, societies, associations, organ- 
izations, parties, churches, meetings, etc. All these show 
the desire of the people for social life, for co-operation. 
They show the desire of the people to meet together face to 
face and not through delegates. People come together in 
little bands and get acquainted, and their acquaintance con- 
sists of getting and giving opinions, ideas and sentiments. 
In a face to face meeting there is a mingling of ideas, a 
common market place where ideas are exchanged, a school 
in which we both learn and teach, a contest where we ac- 
quire skill and compare our strength. Society is concrete 
and not abstract. If we pick out our best men in the com- 
munity by sitting down in a chair and thinking, we bring 
them together in our mind, we assemble them before our 
mind's eye, and there from the assembly we make our choice. 
The principle that men must act together in assemblies 
seems too fundamental, too primary to even admit of argu- 
ment. It is simply natural. We have grown up that way 
and will continue to grow in that way. When a candidate 
is picked out for us we have nothing to do with the matter, 
but if we could be back of the screen, we would see an 
assembly of people. We would see the leaders get together, 
and the decision of the committee or boss is the result of 
their combined ideas. 

To make a party frame-work, or a frame-work of gov- 
ernment, and leave actual assemblies of the people out of 
the plan, is like baking a pudding without the plums, like 
giving a concert to an empty house, like locking the door 
after the horse has been stolen. Newspapers and books in- 
form the mind, but these papers and books tells us of what 
the people have done in assemblies and meetings. Some- 
body has been suggested for alderman in the seventh ward. 



GOVERNMENT BY PETITION 213 

Ah, this suggestion did not come up like a mushroom out of 
the ground in a night. A few people compare notes, give 
and take ideas, and the suggestion is born out of their ex- 
perience. It is the contact of mind with mind that fills the 
world with suggestions. 

We cannot get acquainted with people by sitting in a 
corner or dreaming over a book. We must meet them face 
to face, know their names, get their ideas and give them 
ours. 

The idea of the people voting by ballot, without previ- 
ous consultation with other people, for a candidate for office 
in a community larger than an election district, is simply 
preposterous. Each voter could as successfully sit down and 
write out the name of the governor of the moon. Suppose 
a club of one-hundred men want to hire a bookkeeper, how 
would they do it? Let each member sit down and write out 
a name of a man he considers suitable. What would be the 
result ? When we come to choosing men for office, there are 
so many men that might be chosen that it is impossible to 
make any headway, unless we have a few names suggested 
to us out of the many possible names. This suggesting must 
be done when people meet face to face. 

Mr. Jones wants to hire a stenographer. There are 
one-hundred in the city that he can hire. Now, does he sit 
down in his chair and say "I will hire Miss Blank." Xo, he 
writes out an advertisement, inserts it in the paper and gets 
perhaps fifty answers. These fifty are candidates for the 
office. He assembles them in his mind, they look real to him 
and he picks out the one that comes nearest to his ideal. He 
could not have picked out one without having them before 
him, in their letters. How much harder would it be for him 
to pick out a governor than a stenographer, and he could 
pick out a governor only in a similar way. He must first 



214 THE: WASHINGTON PARTY 

know what men want to be governor, and their qualifications, 
and how can he do this without talking with other men ? 

My ward has two thousand voters. We will say one 
party has one-thousand members entitled to vote at the pri- 
mary. The ward committee makes up a list of delegates. 
The city or county pays for printing the list and all expenses 
connected with this election. The members of that party 
walk into the ballot place, on each side of which is a card 
stating in effect that no talking is allowed within 150 ft. of 
the polling place. There is the printed list lying on a table, 
there is a box and there are the inspectors and watchers, 
watchers to see that the people do not talk. The voter can- 
not talk, he walks into the place, picks up the paper on which 
the names of the delegates are written, puts the paper into 
the box. What a farce. Did he read the names before he 
"voted" the paper? No, what would have been the differ- 
ence ? Does he want those men for delegates ? He does not 
even know most of them. But he thinks some of them are 
rogues. What can he do? Oh, he can refuse to vote for 
them, to be sure. He can mark their names off the list, or he 
can make up a list that he thinks is better, go out through 
the ward and get a certain number of men to agree with him 
that his list is better, have his list printed, at his own expense, 
and then get enough more men to agree with him that his 
list is the best to receive more votes than the candidates of 
the organization. And while he is doing this, let every other 
man who does not like the list made out by the committee, 
go out and do likewise. What a ridiculous farce. 

But what is the use of wasting the people's time? Let 
the committee pick out the candidates for the delegates, print 
the ballots, and then deposit in the box as many as there 
are voters in the party, and call that the result, and if any 
kicker is dissatisfied with the decision, let him make an affi- 
davit before a notary public that he did not want his ballot 
cast. That would make proceedings more direct. 



GOVERNMENT BY PETITION 215 

If the people are not to rule, they are to give their ap- 
proval to the acts of their rulers, and it must be made as hard 
as possible for them to express any disapproval. They are 
not to govern, they are to give their consent to be governed. 
The voice of the people is the voice of God to be sure, but 
the bosses are the "prophets of God", who move "mysteri- 
ously" their wonders to perform. 



216 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER XVI. 

SCHOOL HOUSE ASSEMBLIES. 

Public Opinion Enlightened. 

Washington said "In proportion as the structure of gov- 
ernment gives force to public opinion, it is essential that 
public opinion be enlightened." 

The structure of our government is public opinion, it is 
the force of public opinion. Our election machinery should 
be a device for ascertaining public opinion. What better place 
for this is there than public schoolhouses ? They belong to 
the state or community. They give instruction to the chil- 
dren, there, too, the voters may receive information, express 
their opinions, and be informed by the State of what has 
been done and is to be done. The State takes no thought of 
the instruction of the people as to their government. Let it 
educate them at the schoolhouse, let them there assemble to 
educate one another under the regulation of the State. There 
they can become acquainted with men and measures, there 
they can give intelligent expression to their wishes. That 
will be the true primary — the primary where education will 
be gained and where wishes will be expressed. Public 
opinion will be enlightened, it will grow. The genius of the 
American people will take another form and develop into the 
full-grown plant of self-government, with blossom and fruit. 
Out of the schoolhouse will come the voice of the genius of 
the people. We surpass the world in whatever we have un- 
dertaken and have had an opportunity of doing. With the 
opportunity of actual self-government will come the develop- 
ment of public opinion, a development in the process of gov- 
ernment that will demonstrate our superiority and capacity. 
We have been a hundred years getting ready for this blos- 
soming time. We have gathered the strength of experience, 
and now we shall bloom forth the flowering tree that will 
restore the Garden of Eden on earth. 



SCHOOL HOUSE ASSEMBLIES 217 

The force that governs us is the opinion of some of the 
people. This opinion is formed not in the closet of the states- 
man, but in actual assemblies of the people, where they talk 
face to face. We propose such meetings instead of the 
present caucus. But what a contrast in the place of meeting 
and the character of the business done. Instead of the beer 
sign over the door, shall wave the flag of the United States 
and of the State of Xew York, beckoning us ever higher. 
Instead of the license to sell the fire water that makes us 
fools, we will display the charter of self-government which 
makes us free. We will draw from the fountain of knowl- 
edge instead of from the barrel of whiskey. The voice of the 
people soberly discussing their welfare and happiness will 
take the place of the clink of the wine glass and the shouts 
of drunken merriment. The passion of depravity will give 
place to the passion for individual and social development. 
The voice of the people will be the voice of God, not the voice 
of grog. 

At these meetings, the people would express themselves 
on public questions, and the officers would be bound by their 
instructions. One meeting could be held to initiate proposi- 
tions and another to pass upon them. At these meetings, the 
people could express themselves for an officer, and such ex- 
pression would be binding upon the delegates elected at the 
meeting. 

What questions can the people discuss at their school- 
house meetings ? What questions will come to their minds ? 
What progress will they be able to make with such ques- 
tions? They will form a little republic. They will be the 
State in miniature, and on a small scale will meet the same 
problems that will confront the law-makers at the State and 
National capitols. First they will be interested in the educa- 
tion of their children, and that will open up a great many 
questions of public education — new schoolhouses, school fur- 



2i8 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

niture, teachers, free text books, etc. The relation of the 
State to the school district, to the parent and to the child 
will all be great questions. Some of them will clearly be 
w r ithin the intelligence and experience of the people. Some 
of the questions will be beyond their mental grasp or experi- 
ence, but such questions will give rise to impulses that will 
be felt by the few that can understand them and will be 
stimulants to the real leaders of society. There will be sug- 
gestions which will be acted upon by those who do have the 
ability. Questions will come up that now are never thought 
of. There is much to be done in the educational line, and 
these suggestions as to what to do will come up from the 
people in these little meetings. Shall there be separate 
schools for white and colored children, for natives and for- 
eigners, for boys and girls? Shall the pupils be taught 
trades, business, Latin and Greek? 

The people will want to know how the government is 
run, what the officers of the State are doing, and questions 
will come up as to whether the State should let the people 
know what the State is doing. How shall they get their in- 
formation — through newspapers or through channels to be 
provided by the State? Newspapers supply the want, but 
they supply it poorly. The State should do something in the 
way of letting the people know what it does. 

If the State is run by public opinion, the State must 
give public opinion something to feed upon and not let it 
run wild or be fed upon the husks of selfish partisan papers. 
The State must provide for its maintenance, and its main- 
tenance rests upon the intelligence and information of the 
people. The people must think, and they must have some- 
thing to think about. The questions suggested by the 
schoolhouse itself are the great questions of government 
today. When the questions are too deep for ordinary in- 
telligence the people will carry the questions to their repre- 



SCHOOL HOUSE ASSEMBLIES 219 

sentatives, to the higher court of the people. The repre- 
sentatives will not be removed from the people, but will be 
in touch with them, striving to meet their wishes and answer 
their questions and their needs. The lower cases will be 
settled by the people in their own court, those questions that 
are beyond their intellectual jurisdiction, they will carry to 
their higher courts, just as they take their cases in law now. 
This system will raise up great teachers of the people out of 
the midst of the people. We will all be students of govern- 
ment, and whatever genius the American people possess, 
will be called forth by the system. The flag of authority 
will wave over each schoolhouse, and the voice of the 
people's authority will come out of these little school meet- 
ings. 

The people will walk upon their roads, and questions of 
improved roads will come up, and these local questions will 
lead to State roads, State waterways, canals, etc. They will 
have diseases, and questions of quarantine will arise. They 
will settle disputes, and questions of State and National arbi- 
tration will be discussed. Means will be suggested for set- 
tling disputes between employers and employees, if indeed 
there shall continue to be any such disputes. The peace will 
have to be kept by the constable, and questions of State and 
National defense will be suggested. The people will see the 
waste of their own resources, and the question of the con- 
servation of State and National resources will receive their 
proper attention. There will be those unemployed and 
vainly looking for work, and the vital question of the rights 
and duties of men in society will receive proper attention. 
If I must keep my neighbor, I may ask, "Am I my neigh- 
bor's keeper,'' or "What have I done that my neighbor must 
have a keeper and not be able to keep himself, by whom has 
he been robbed?" Injustice will be seen and felt by the 
people at close quarters, and the questions will come up 



220 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

from the people and they will be answered. Shall the 
people rule ? Give them the chance and nothing can restrain 
them. The people will grow and develop under the most 
favorable circumstances, and their government will be a part 
of their growth. We have advanced in everything but gov- 
ernment, which has lagged behind. It should be far in the 
lead as it is of the most importance. Under proper condi- 
tions, it will be in the lead. Government must be put on the 
same foundation as education and business, the people must 
meet one another face to face to bring out what is in their 
nature. The schoolhouse with the parliamentary assembly 
is the incubator where the symbolical eagle of the American 
government must feather its brood. 

Assemblies of the People. 

President Roosevelt appointed a Country Life Commis- 
sion, the object of which was to interest people living in the 
country in a discussion of their condition, and to find means 
of improving life in the country. 

In a letter to the chairman of that committee the Presi- 
dent said, "It seems to me, therefore, that it would be wise 
to try to get into the closest possible touch with the farmers 
of the country, and to find out from them, so far as you are 
able, just what they regard as being the subjects with which 
it is most important that you should deal .... I accord- 
ingly suggest that you ask the farmers to come together in 
the several school districts of the country so that they may 
meet and consider these matters. I suggest the school dis- 
tricts because the school-house would be the natural and 
proper place for such a meeting ; or they could meet at other 
customary or convenient places. . . . You are simply 
trying to ascertain what are the general economic, social, 
educational, and sanitary conditions of the open country, 
and what, if anything, the farmers themselves can do to help 



SCHOOL HOUSE ASSEMBLIES 221 

themselves, and how the government can help them. To 
this end your especial desire is to get in touch with and 
represent the farmers themselves. " 

The chairman in reply to the President said: "The 
commission gladly welcomes your suggestion that all coun- 
try people come together to consider these great questions, 
and hereby requests all persons who are specially interested 
in the welfare of the open country to meet in their usual 
gathering places on or before December 5th to consider the 
subject you suggest, or any of the questions on which the 
commission is making inquiries. 

"Copies of the questions may be secured by writing to 
the Commission on Country Life, Washington, D. C. The 
commission desires, that, so far as possible, a general sum- 
mary or estimate of the discussions in all the meeting places 
be promptly sent to its office in Washington, so that it may 
have the benefit of all suggestions in preparing its repor 

This is a new departure in our government. If the 
people in the country are interested in discussing their 
social, economic, and political conditions, it is important that 
they have an opportunity to do so and the President's efforts 
to enable them to do so are praiseworthy. If the lawmakers 
are to know what the people desire and what is for their 
good, they must know the condition of the people. The con- 
ditions are best known by the people themselves, and if the 
people can hold meetings in their school-houses or other con- 
venient places and talk face to face over the conditions which 
confront them, they will be able to give their lawmakers the 
information they most need. These people in their little 
meetings can make certain laws for themselves, and where 
it is not in their jurisdiction to make laws, they can express 
their desire for higher laws to a higher authority. 

Such assemblies as these, remind one of the meetings of 
the Anglo-Saxons, which we have already mentioned. It 



222 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

also bears out the argument that the people are able to meet 
together in small groups, discuss their conditions and needs, 
and express their wishes as to what is for their good. They 
would be able to pick out in such meetings their best citizens 
to represent them, in a meeting which should consider the 
needs of a larger section of territory. Such assemblies are 
just the kind that were contemplated when the government 
was organized. It was such assemblies that chose our first 
President, it is such assemblies that we now propose to insti- 
tute in order to know what the wishes of the people are, and 
to let the people pick out men who will properly carry out 
their wishes. 

Use of School Houses. 

Within the last two years there have sprung up in Roch- 
ester a number of civic clubs, which hold meetings in the 
public schoolhouses, for the discussion of political and social 
questions by people without regard to party. It has seemed 
fitting to let these buildings which belong to the city be used 
by the people in the city for their education, as well as that 
of their children. Here we find the people assembled giving 
intelligent consideration to public questions. The conclu- 
sions to which they come are to their credit, for they are not 
blinded with the dust of party. At one of the meetings 
Governor Hughes was entertained, and he spoke to an assem- 
blage of these clubs. These are true parliamentry assemblies 
of the people. They give expression to the real sentiment 
and ability of the people. They are not an outlet for party 
spirit. If such assemblies are beneficial to Rochester would 
they not be beneficial for the whole country ? 

The school-houses of other cities and of the country dis- 
tricts are as appropriate for such meetings as are the school- 
houses of Rochester. The use of the public school-houses 
for such purposes is an innovation, but it is one of the most 
hopeful signs of the day. These little meetings may be made 



SCHOOL HOUSE ASSEMBLIES 223 

the buds to be grafted on the political tree of actual govern- 
ment by the people. Let us have all the people meet in the 
school-houses, churches or other suitable places to there ex- 
press themselves as the people have done at these meetings. 

In every college we have what are called "chairs" for 
different departments of learning. Let there be a chair of 
good citizenship, of good government in every schoolhouse. 
There will the people assemble and fill this chair. The 
speaker of these little assemblies shall have more power than 
the speaker of the House of Representatives who now is a 
real king. Congress shall be in the school-houses, and the 
Washington Government shall hear the voice of the people 
and carry out their will. Washington shall be the nerve 
center of the nation. The sentiments of the people will orig- 
inate at these extremities, at the assemblies, and shall be 
carried through nerve and nerve centers to the head at Wash- 
ington. 



224 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER XVII. 
PARTIES AND THE STATE. 
Theory of Parties. 

I give some quotations from Governor Hughes : 
"The party voters have the right to say who shall be the 
party candidates. " Certainly, but what business is it to the 
State whether the members of a party have their rights 
within the party or not? The rights of the members of the 
party are subjects for the party to determine and have noth- 
ing whatever to do with the State any more than the ques- 
tion whether the members of a ball team get their rights 
in the team. 

What is a party that the State takes notice of its mem- 
bers ? It is an organization of men to elect some officers or 
to get some law passed. Now, what concern is it of the 
State how such an organization is managed? One man can 
pick out candidates, and that may be the way the members 
of the party want them picked out. Have not the people 
the right to have a monarchy party if they want to? What 
right has the State to say how a private society shall be 
managed, so long as it obeys the laws? The State has just 
as much right to prescribe the rules for playing cards. What 
right has the State to say how W. R. Hearst shall run his 
Independence League? It was incorporated, and the board 
of directors have the right to manage it just the same as if 
it were a Railroad. And that is the point. We are recog- 
nizing the parties as corporations entitled to name candi- 
dates for whom the people may vote, for whom the people 
must vote. We put the people in parties and say how the 
parties are to be managed, we say how the parties shall nom- 
inate candidates who are to be officers. We, the State gov- 
ernment, take an organization, a corporation, and say it shall 
pick out our officers. The men in office might as justly in- 



PARTIES AND THE STATE 225 

corporate the Hudson Bay Ice Co. to select the officers for 
the State of New York. 

This would be despotic. The State should provide how 
the people can nominate and vote for men for office, but it 
has no right to recognize parties, to let them have anything 
to say about election. What more has a man in a party to 
say about the government than a man outside of a party? 

A party may be made, owned, and run by an individual 
for some special purpose, and the State makes the people 
subordinate to such a party. 

"We aim to secure better representative government, 
and in particular to achieve representative party govern- 
ment." That is the point again. We are going to make this 
a government of party, by party and for party. It is not only 
representative, but representative party government. 

"Party voters are interested in candidates, not dele- 
gates." How are they to get candidates but through dele- 
gates or committeemen? They are not interested in dele- 
gates, but the delegates or committeemen are to name the 
candidates. Yes. If the delegates don't name suitable can- 
didates, some disinterested individual can go out and get six 
thousand petitioners to sign a petition to have some other 
candidate, and then get enough men to vote for his candi- 
date to win. Sure! 

"It does not apply to town, village and school district 
officers, as it has been deemed best not to deal with these 
minor officers." These minor offices are just the ones that 
the people can fill intelligently and without delegates. It is 
in such cases that direct nominations are possible, but, "It 
has been deemed best not to deal with these minor offices." 

"It does not apply to Presidential Electors, as these are 
mere figure-heads, and when the candidates for President 
and Vice-President have been chosen at National conven- 



226 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

tions the selection of the electors may be left to the party au- 
thorities." 

The Presidential Electors have become "mere figure- 
heads" through the usurpation of parties, and now we are to 
pass a law to make them "mere figure-heads" and let them 
be selected by the "party authorities" as they see fit. The 
choice of President is to be turned over to party organiza- 
tions at National conventions and no questions asked. One 
man may control the party organization and yet the people 
must vote for the electors the party picks out. We shall in- 
deed have the "King Maker". 

"Now it is futile and undesirable to attempt to destroy 
parties. It is inevitable that parties will continue, and party 
organization is essential." 

Those who would destroy parties are "undesirable citi- 
zens." However undesirable, the parties must be destroyed. 

"Those who in attempting to perfect any system which 
has such a close relation to the public welfare as the method 
of party nominations, ignore the necessity and continuance 
of part} organization, and like the ostrich bury their heads in 
the sand." 

Those who ignore the necessity of "party" organiza- 
tion bury their heads in the sand ! No, they are trying to get 
the heads of the reformers out of the sand, or they are rather 
trying to get the sand out of the reformers' heads. Those 
who think we must have party organizations to control the 
people instead of organizing the people to act themselves, 
are the ones who stick their heads into the sand or throw 
dust into their own eyes. 

"Under the plan proposed the leaders may suggest a 
candidate, but the party voters have a chance within the 
party on primary day to say whether or not he shall be 
chosen to represent the party as the party nominee," 



PARTIES AND THE STATE 227 

The machine can control the committee, the machine 
will be the committee. The committee will suggest the can- 
didate, and then what can the voter? do? They can say 
whether he shall be the nominee, but if they are opposed to 
him, how shall they organize their opposition? How are they 
going to unite on a candidate when they cannot talk at the 
polls? Oh, some one can go out with a petition, some one 
who has nothing to do can go over a county or the whole 
State and easily get any number of signers, and then if any- 
body else wants some other candidate, why, he can go out 
with a petition too ! 

Parties and the Constitution. 

The Constitution authorizes government by the people, 
but it does not make any provision for such government. 
It has given us the bill of fare without the dinner. Partie- 
have grown up to «!o what the Constitution and laws have 
failed to make provisions for, and parties are necessary to 
this until the laws shall remedy the defect. 

So far as the Constitution is concerned, political par- 
ties have no existence. A party is a private affair, and has 
no more standing under the Constitution, and should have no 
more standing under the laws, than any club or organization 
of people for any purpose whatever. When the laws grant 
the members of a party any more privileges than they do to 
any other citizens, it is unfair and unjust. It is unconstitu- 
tional. What right lias the State to permit two or more 
political parties to say who shall be our officers? Governor 
Hughes says: "With exceptions almost negligible, the 
people are divided into two great parties. Action out- 
these parties is practically ineffective save as it may voice a 
protest. From one or the other of these parties come our 
officers of government." 



228 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Parties do select our officers, and outside of these par- 
ties the people can do nothing. This is the condition that 
confronts us. This is the disease that affects us. Now, shall 
we say this condition and this disease are necessary, that 
they shall be made permanent? Shall we say that parties, 
having become our masters through defects in our laws, 
shall now be made our legal masters by means of the law? 
Shall their robbery of the people be declared a virtue ? 

Mr. Hughes says: "We propose to emancipate the 
party voters and give them a fair chance to run their own 
affairs." What business is it of the State how the voters of 
a party run their affairs ? Do the affairs of a private organ- 
ization become the affairs of the State? 

But the plain fact is, we are helpless in the grasp of the 
party giant. Our statesmen do not or will not see that the 
people can rule themselves. They can see the parties and 
feel their pull, and they cannot think of getting along without 
their masters. Instead of dealing with the people directly in 
electing their officers, these statesmen propose to deal with 
the people through parties, they do not permit the people to 
rule but compel them to be ruled through parties. They pro- 
pose to make the parties supreme, and tell the people how 
they must act under their party government. They actually 
make the parties take the place of the State. Instead of mak- 
ing provision for the expression of the will of the people, it 
is proposed to deny the right of the people to express them- 
selves and to give parties the exclusive right to direct the 
affairs of the government. Shall the people rule or shall the 
parties rule? We have recognized theoretically the right of 
the people to govern themselves although we never enabled 
them to do so. Now we propose to recognize only the right 
of the parties to govern the people, and to prescribe the rules 
by which the parties shall rule the people. The parties will 
become the royal families, and the people who do not belong 



PARTIES AND THE STATE 229 

to these families are outcasts and without any voice in the 
State. 

When the State says that I may vote for certain men 
and not for any man I wish, it denies my right to vote ; and if 
it denies the right of one, it is as w r rong as to deny the right 
of all. If I have a right to vote, the State has no right to say 
whom I shall vote for, it has no right to limit my choice to 
the candidates picked out by two political bosses. ' 

The State passes laws requiring certain officers to be- 
lieve in the principles of one or the other of these two great 
political parties, that is the test of eligibility. It does this 
when it establishes bi-partisan boards. It has as much right 
to say that they shall believe in the doctrine of certain 
churches to be eligible to office. Unless a man believes in 
one or the other of these parties he can take no effective part 
in the election. When our thoughts keep us out of office 
and prevent us from exercising our rights of voting, are we 
in a free country ? Are we not going back to the dark ages 
when a man's belief might cost him his life? Then the State 
went into partnership with the church organizations. Xow 
our statesmen propose to have the State go into partnership 
with political parties. We have succeeded in separating the 
church from the State. Shall we be able to keep the State 
out of the clutches of political parties? In the dark ages it 
was thought necessary to have the church regulated by the 
State as a necessary part of the State. Xow our leaders are 
declaring that party organizations are a necessary part of the 
State, that the people must be brought into these parties in 
order to exercise their right to vote. We were dominated by 
religious parties, by church organizations ; then we were con- 
trolled by royalty ; and now we are to be turned over to the 
care of political parties. God, through his representatives 
on earth, was the State. The King, acting by divine right, 
was the State ; and now parties, through acts of our legisla- 



2 3 o THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

tors, shall be the State. Indeed, it is time to ask, Shall the 
people rule? When? 

Has the nominee of a party any more right, any higher 
right before the election law, than any individual who is a 
candidate for any office? 

Public office is a party trust. Trusts destroy competi- 
tion in business, they destroy individual activity. Instead of 
the individual being the unit of industrial activity, it is the 
trust that is the unit. Parties are trust organizations for the 
distribution of public offices. We have a secret trust for a 
certain purpose. The powers of government must be placed 
in the hands of certain officers, and parties are the corpora- 
tions for picking out the men for the offices. The State in- 
corporates the trusts. It is now proposed to incorporate the 
parties as the artificial persons through whom all the people 
must act. The individual is melted into the party. Inde- 
pendent political action will be as impossible as it is now im- 
possible for a man without money to build a railroad or run 
a large factory. The laboring man must work for the trust, 
the voters must belong to the parties. Through "necessity" 
one masters the other. Shall the people rule? Shall the 
laborers rule ? What are trusts for ? To rule the people in- 
dustrially. What are parties for ? To rule the people polit- 
ically. Are they necessary? Yes, until the people become 
the State and rule themselves. Parties or the State must be 
destroyed. 

What is the State? 

Organization is the State. Whatever power of govern- 
ing is organized, is the State. It may be King, Party, or 
People. All people possess the power of government. We 
recognize the fact that we have that power, but to say that 
the people have the power is not to say that the people can 
use the power. They must use or operate their power 



PARTIES AND THE STATE 231 

through a machine, through an organization. Some power 
will be user!. A King may appear. Party rulers may exer- 
cise the power over the people by making themselves the 
centers of organizations. They and their followers get the 
consent of the people, which constitutes the organization. 
Parties may come in and organize the people. The Constitu- 
tion provides for certain officers and says the people shall 
choose them, but does not provide a way for the people to 
do so. Men want the offices and the power the office 
them. They organize a band or party to get these 
It is true that some such party must be organized to get the 
offices, and that is why parties are necessary. The gi 
there to be eaten. The cow cannot get to it because there is 
a fence — organization — around it. The elephant and mule 
are able to jump the fence through organizing and they c fc 
the grass. We cannot take down the fence, but we must 
give the people an official organization so that they can enter 
and eat. An organization is necessary. 

Shall it be the people organized under the State, as the 
State, or shall it be parties — pirates — who organize them- 
selves for plunder and profit? Shall the people rule by or- 
ganizing themselves, or shall they be ruled by parties who 
organize themselves for ruling the people. The organization 
is the State. Shall the State be the people, or shall it be the 
parties. From "The parties are the State" to "I am the 
State," is but a step, the step of a party leader, of which 
Washington warned us. Shall we take it? Shall we rather 
not retrace the first step we have taken, by destroying par- 
ties altogether. Parties have taken the place of the people. 
We cannot put the people in power without destroying the 
parties. 

A house was built for the people to enjoy. Some tramps 
came along, and finding it empty entered. Xow, the people 
want to enjoy the house. Mr. Hughes proposes to give the 
tramps a lease of the house. It is necessary to have some 
one in the house to take care of it. The tramps are there. 
Must we give them a deed of the house. We propose to 
drive out the tramps and let the people enter their own house 
prepared for them by those who followed the "Father of His 
Countrv." 



232 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

SAVING THE CONSTITUTION. 

By Parties. 

Governor Hughes says : "When last year it was sought 
to make the law of the State correspond with the mandate of 
the Constitution, etc." This year do we ask to make the law 
of the State correspond with the mandate of the Constitu- 
tion ? 

The first article of the Constitution says : "No member 
of this State shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of 
the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless 
by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers." 

Article two says : "Every male citizen of the age of 21 
years, shall be entitled to vote, for all officers that are now or 
hereafter may be elective by the people." 

Let us change the Constitution to read : "No member of 
this Sciie shall be disfranchised if he belongs to a political 
party, and every male citizen shall be entitled to vote only for 
candidates for office nominated by political parties." Or else 
let us follow the "mandate" of the Constitution and enable 
the people to vote for all officers, and "vote" means to ex- 
press a choice for. The most important officers for whom we 
can vote are Presidential Electors, and as to these Mr. 
Hughes says it is not worth while considering their nomina- 
tion, let the parties nominate them, for they are "mere figure- 
heads." 

If I belong to a party I can give my consent to have cer- 
tain men made officers, but I cannot "vote". I can vote 
where I can express my wishes, and that the election laws 
and the proposed election laws make it impossible for me to 
do. Men can "vote" only when they "meet". All the people 
who actually vote, do meet. We may drop pieces of paper 
into a box or pull a lever that registers our consent to what 
has been done, but it does not register our "vote". 



SAVING THE CONSTITUTION 233 

To vote means to express a wish for. To be compelled 
to choose between two evils is not exactly to have one's 
wish. We must be able to vote for whom we want if we ex- 
press our wishes. What are our desires in regard to the 
government? That depends upon the opinions and wishes 
of others, and the only way we can find out is to meet with 
them, and common opinions will take a common form of 
expression, and without such meeting our wishes must re- 
main without form and void. Now, when the Constitution 
gives us the right to vote and the laws do not give us the 
opportunity to exercise that right in the only way it can be 
exercised, the Constitution becomes void. 

Mr. Hughes says : "With exceptions almost negligible, 
the people are divided for political purposes into two great 
parties. Action outside these parties is practically in- 
effective save as it may voice a protest. From one or the 
other of these patries come our officers of government." 

This is my proposition well expressed. The people are 
divided into two parties. If they are not in these two par- 
ties they can do nothing. Now, since they cannot act with- 
out the two parties we propose to make a law so they never 
can act without these parties. To pass a law that will make 
it impossible to elect officers outside of these two parties, is 
the same as making a law that will enable only members of 
these two parties to be our officers or to vote for officers. 
Now they propose to have the committees of these parties 
pick out men for candidates, and these men must become our 
officers, for the people cannot organize themselves outside of 
the parties, and to be outside of the party organization repre- 
sented by the committee, is as being outside of the parties. 
Yes, our action is inside the parties the same as the action 
of the bird is inside the cat. We can "voice a protest" if we 
have money enough to hire men to circulate a petition. But 
why protest ? Let us pray ! 



234 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

The Constitution gave us the right to vote but did not 
give us the opportunity. Parties have come to do what we 
might have done if we had been given the chance. Parties 
have made the Constitution unnecessary, it is outgrown. In- 
stead of making the law of the State correspond with the 
mandate of the Constitution, we kick the Constitution into 
the street to be tread under foot by the Elephant and Donkey. 

The next time the Constitution is revised the preamble 
should read: "We, the Parties of the State of New York, 
grateful to the negligence of the people to exercise their 
rights, which has given us the opportunity to rule them, do 
hereby command them as follows:" 

Which comes first, the party or the citizen? Is the citi- 
zen outside of the two great parties of no account? Do the 
parties take higher rank than the State itself? To be a mem- 
ber of a party is a greater privilege than to be a citizen of the 
State ! The party is more effective than the State. The 
Party Platform is more binding than the Constitution, the 
power of the party committee is higher than that of the offi- 
cers they appoint. Not the "mandate" of an outgrown Con- 
stitution, but the decree of the platform written by a self- 
appointing committee, is what our laws must correspond 
with. 

Saving the Party. 

We have saved the Country, we have saved the Consti- 
tution, and now we must save the Parties — "protectors of our 
liberties." 

In the chapter "Party Government a Failure," I have 
pointed out some of the black spots on the party leopard, and 
given some quotations from Governor Hughes. In addition 
to the observations made there, let us note that we have 
always had party government that we have found fault with. 
Are we sufficiently satisfied with it that we want to perpetuate 
it, or shall we let the people rule? 



SAVING THE CONSTITUTION 235 

In the chapter "Necessity of Parties", I have given ex- 
pression to the opinions of our great statesmen and officers 
who say that parties are necessary, but they do not say what 
they are necessary for. Until we organize the people into 
parliamentary assemblies so they can govern themselves, par- 
ties will be necessary to appoint officers to govern the people. 
That is what they are necessary for. We have denied the 
people the opportunity of governing themselves, and parties 
have come to govern them. Shall we entrust the power of 
government to the hands of the people and destroy parties? 
If we do the one we must do the other. 

For myself I say, "Parties Must Be Destroyed", but the 
Governor says, "No". He says: "To safeguard the party 
machinery from being used for selfish ends is essential, not 
only to the welfare of the party, but under our party system 
to the welfare of the State." First, let us observe that the 
party machinery was made out of selfish interest, is main- 
tained by selfish interests, is made to run for selfish interests, 
and cannot be run in any other way, because it must be run 
by a few. 

The Governor says : "Now, it is futile and UNDESIR- 
ABLE to attempt to destroy parties, it is unavoidable that 
parties will continue, and party organization is essential." 

"It has been said that it would destroy party organiza- 
tion, but means have been provided to maintain party organ- 
ization." No, the dear parties must not be destroyed. 

"In short, no blow is aimed at party organization." 

"Independent action may have its negative value, but for 
affirmative constructive work, party organization is essen- 
tial" 

What a Sphinx ! 

Politicians are despicable, party government is rotten, 
but parties must be preserved! 

The fight has "just begun". When the cruel war is 
over and the politicians are sent to . . . their resting place, 
the "people" will build a monument to the "Remains of Par- 
ties." And on this monument will be inscribed the likeness 
of an Elephant and a Mule and the words, "To the Memory 
of the 'Defender of the Faith'." 



236 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER XIX. 

THE DANGER. 

Necessity of Being Kicked by the Mule and Trodden on by 

the Elephant! 

In America, we say all men are equal, because all can 
vote, and one vote counts as much as another. Votes are 
equal. In the matter of depositing ballots, voters are equal ; 
but the power of the voters is very unequal. A laborer on a 
railroad can vote once, and Mr. Harriman, the railroad king, 
can vote but once. The vote of each counts alike, but the 
laborer's influence ends with his vote. Mr. Harriman is in- 
vited by the President to come down to Washington to talk 
over the Message to Congress. You see the difference in 
their influence. So it is not only the votes that count, it is 
the influence of the voters, and the influence of the voter's 
money. Mr. Harriman says : "Newspaper men are crooks, 
and I can buy them ; whenever I want legislation from the 
legislature I can buy it; I can buy congress, and, if neces- 
sary, can buy the courts." 

There is safety in the wide distribution of the powers 
of government among the people. There is danger in the 
concentration of power in the hands of the few. 

There is danger to the Republic when the ruling class 
considers its own interests superior to the interests of all, 
when the ruling class thinks it has the privilege of granting 
the favors of government to its friends. We have a class 
controlling our government. It is the politician's class. 
Favoritism and selfishness are the principles that control 
them. The power of government is coming into their hands 
more and more and the voters have less and less of the 
"sovereignty of the people." 

The politicians form a class possessing directly, for the 
time being, the power of government; and they are tools 



THE DANGER 237 

hired by those wishing to use that power. Those having the 
wealth will secure the power as long as the politicians have 
their price — and get it. The class that have interests op- 
posed to those of the mass of the people, want control of the 
government and they are wise in their deceits. In politics 
they join the parties that profess the cause of the poor. They 
lead the people to elect politicians that can be bought, and 
then buy them. The people become accustomed to vote with 
one party, and then those who control the party control the 
people who vote for it. A class that wants to get control 
of the government could not invent a better device than a 
party leading the people to blindly shout for "prosperity and 
the flag," which means trusts and politicians. 

Beware of the Elephant and the Mule bearing "gifts" 
to the people. They are loaded with "graft". 

Governor Hughes says : "The easiest way for special 
interests to secure favors and to get the best of the laws is 
through a treaty with a party machine." 

He also says: "Now it is futile and undesirable to at- 
tempt to destroy parties. It is inevitable that parties will 
continue, and party organisation is essential." 

Lead us Necessity mid the encircling gloom. 

Let Liberty cast down her torch and Thou lead on ! 

Shall the people rule ? 

Shall parties be destroyed? 

What is the answer? 

Principles. 

Back of an institution we see the principle upon which 
it is based. Back of a man's acts we see the principles that 
govern his mind. If a man steals we say he lacks the prin- 
ciple of honesty. If a man leads a life of crime we say he 
does not believe that "Virtue is its own reward." 

Why did the men on the Mayflower in 1620 form a little 
government in which all should have equal power? Because 



238 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

they did not believe that one of their number had the 
RIGHT to make laws for the rest unless they gave him 
their consent. They believed that a government derives its 
just powers from the consent of the governed. They be- 
lieved that government is a society, and that the individual 
is the unit of that society. Upon such principles our free in- 
stitutions are built, and such principles are the life of our 
institutions. We will not trust a man with our money if we 
know he is dishonest. We will not trust our officers with 
unlimited and uncontrolled power in government because 
we know that it is the principle of man to use such power 
for his own ends. Men find a satisfaction in exercising 
power over others, and when they are entrusted with un- 
limited power they become despots. If the people expect 
any other result they will be disappointed. The strong like 
to rule the weak, the rich want to restrain the poor, those who 
have power over others like to use it. Men like to be kings 
because the office gives them power over the people. Amer- 
icans hate despotism, they will not be subjects. They do 
not want to be restrained by trusts, they do not want con- 
centrated wealth to hold them within its grasp, they do not 
want their officers to w r ield unlimited power over them. 
They put the man above the dollar, they make their officers 
servants not masters, they hold their power in their own 
hands. 

What keeps us from the rule of kings? The belief in 
the principle that a government derives its just powers from 
the consent of the governed. What holds the great mass of 
people of the world under monarchical government? The 
belief in the principle that God has made some to be rulers 
and others to be subjects. Enthuse into the lives of the 
servile millions the principle that the people have the right 
to govern themselves and to be governed only by their con- 
sent, and the thrones of despots will crumble in a day. Put 



THE DANGER 239 

into Americans the principle of human subjection, that rulers 
of parties are prophets of God, and the great Republic will 
be no more. 

The two principles that have contended for mastery in 
the political world are the principle of freedom and the prin- 
ciple of subjection. One will drive out the other. Both can- 
not operate under the same flag. Here is the contest : Shall 
we be freemen or subjects? Shall governments be oper- 
ated by consent or by necessity ? Shall we desert the peace- 
ful abode of freedom for the hateful house of bondage? 
Shall the power of government be exercised BY us or 
OVER us? Shall our government be the republic estab- 
lished under the Constitution or an oligarchy instituted by 
the politicians who proclaim they are necessary? 

Kings arc necessary, the}- rule by natural right. Par- 
ties are necessary, they rule by natural right. If we put into 
the hearts and minds of the people the principle that parties 
are necessary, we need not expect the people to rule, they 
will give their consent to be governed by the powers that are 
over them, the powers that are necessary. "Invention is the 
mother of necessity." Something was necessary to make 
the machinery of government operative. Parties were in- 
vented to supply that necessity. The government can be 
operated in the interests of the people who compose it, or in 
the interests of the politicians who control it. If parties are 
allowed to supply the operating power the government will 
be run in their interests. If the people are permitted to ex- 
ercise their power of governing it will be operated in their 
interest. 

Shall the prophesy of the Tory Gov. Banks of Massa- 
chusetts be fulfilled? He said in 1856: "I can conceive of 
a time when this Constitution shall not be in existence — 
when we shall have an absolute dictatorial government, 
transmitted from age to age, with men at its head who are 



240 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

made rulers by military commission, or who claim an hered- 
itary right to govern those over whom they are placed." 

Or shall we have the peaceful Dynasty of Necessity 
placed over us by our consent? 

Or shall the people rule ? 

The Day We Celebrate. 

July 4th, 1776 will be the greatest day in the world's 
political history. It makes the beginning of the great suc- 
cessful attempt of democracy to destroy imperialism or par- 
tisanship. In 1800 the imperialists strove mightily to sustain 
their principles and to give the death blow to popular gov- 
ernment. Hamilton declared that he would put himself at 
the head of a 'triumphant army" if his "party" was defeated. 
But the author of the Declaration of Independence, the great 
advocate of American Democracy, won an immortal victory 
for the people. 

The world has awakened from its long dream of the 
divine right of kings to rule subjects, to a lealization of 
the truth that the right to govern is within us, that govern- 
ments derive their just powers from the consent of the 
governed, that liberty is the gift of God to man. Despots, 
monarchists, imperialists and partisans have fallen before 
the march of Human Progress, and they shall not rise up 
again in America to block her way. We will turn our faces 
toward the sunlight of truth, cast behind us the shadows of 
destined imperialism and party necessity and lead humanity 
from the bondage decreed by Gold to the freedom given by 
God. The battle for the principles that will enslave or free 
humanity is still being fought. The triumph of progressive 
democracy in 1776, in 1800, and 1860 inspires us with the 
hope that the twentieth century will not see us begin a "new 
era" of party necessity, in which the servants of the people 
shall become the "prophets of God" and the masters of men. 



THE DANGER 241 

A new birth of freedom is necessary that government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish 
from the earth. We must reaffirm the Declaration of In- 
dependence, readopt the Constitution, replace the Flag on 
the staff of Liberty and institute the Parliamentary Assem- 
bly of the People. The Declaration, the Constitution, the 
Union, the Flag and the Assembly — one and inseparable, now 
and forever! 




242 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

CHAPTER XX. 

THE OPPORTUNITY. 

What We Want. 

We are not advocating tariff revision, free trade, or 
protection ; neither free silver nor the gold standard ; nor 
socialism or government ownership ; not trust regulation or 
trust destruction ; neither ship canals nor airships ; we can- 
not agree on everything, and we are not going to try. We 
want a chance to tell one another what we do want, and that 
is all we want, except we want every one else to have the 
same chance that we do. We must work together, and the 
activity of others is as essential as our own. We want to be 
a party in power-* just long enough to entrust the govern- 
ment to the people, destroy all parties, and then be with the 
rest of the people, the people. 

When parties are destroyed the people can assemble. 
When they assemble they will consider the welfare of the 
State not the welfare of their party. They will come forth 
from the living grave to bury the parties, all of them. The 
people entrusted with power, exercising their power, assem- 
bled as the power of the State, will be the Washington 
Party. There will be no parts. But the people will be 
united in the school of political learning, in their gymnasium 
of political action, in the life of political blessings. 

They will use their talents, they will obtain what they 
desire ; and progress and happiness, instead of progress and 
poverty, will overcome all the land. 

What We Would Do. 
Parties must be destroyed, but you propose to start a 
New Party. With poison we may kill poison. That is all 
the new party will be for. We do not want a new party, we 
want the old parties to commit suicide by taking the dose of 
political freedom we have prepared for them. They will 



THE OPPORTUNITY 243 

take it — voluntarily or involuntarily, but thev will take it 
internally. It will be their sleeping potion. Instead of eat- 
ing the grass of the tethered cow, the Elephant and Donkey 
shall drink their poisoned water at the Satyr's spring. 

The Washington Party proposes murder — of the par- 
ties. If a man should threaten to kill you, you would be on 
guard and would seek to save your life. This party will 
meet the violent opposition of the other parties, but it will 
win. You will help it to win, unless you are a politician with 
a job that you want to keep, and think you are not really 
qualified to keep it, in such a case some other party might 
keep you in, but the Washington Party would not. Such are 
the only ones who will be against us, when they know what 
our party proposes to do. 

What is a political party? Theoretically it is a body of 
men who have similar views on some ONE important ques- 
tion. They get together as one body in voting, and seek to 
elect officers, who are in favor of carrying out that one prin- 
ciple, on which they all agree. In histories, in school books, 
on paper, the members of a party meet and select delegates 
who represent them. These delegates make a platform stat- 
ing what the people they represent believe. Then the mem- 
bers of the party seek to make all the people believe as they 
do, and on election day they vote for the candidates of the 
party, who are bound in honor to carry out the principle ex- 
pressed in the platform. 

What are the facts? A party is a body of men, some- 
times some of them agree on some one principle, but nobody 
knows how many of them agree. They do not meet in cau- 
cuses to select delegates, nor to express their views. They 
have a party organization, it consists of a few committee- 
men, they make up the organization, and sometimes one 
committeeman is the organization. An organization must 
have a leader, so that it is very natural that some one man 



244 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

should become the leader of the party. The leader selects 
the delegates for the people to vote for at the caucuses, and 
the people go to the caucuses, and vote for them, or stay 
away. That is all they can do. Knowing that that is all they 
can do, they usually stay away. The leader writes the plat- 
form, he tells them what they believe. When election time 
comes they go to the polls and vote fo'r the candidate he has 
picked out for them. They do everything he wants them to 
do, they get used to doing it, and they come to feel that it is 
their duty to do it. Then he becomes their boss. Every man 
has to have some business, and the boss makes bossing his 
business. In the words of one of the bosses — he works for 
his own pocket all the time. He is looked down upon as a 
man of crooked ways, but he is the boss and he knows it. 

An elephant who has been tamed can be tied with a rope 
of straw, because he thinks his master has tied him. The 
people are led with a rope of straw as if it were a bond of 
love, for they seem to think the boss loves them. The lion 
loves the ox he eats. 

You have seen a fierce bull led by a ring in the nose. 
When there is no one big boss a few little bosses get together 
and make a ring. This ring is in the people's noses and they 
are led, not like a fierce bull, but like a fat calf, to the 
slaughter. Their blood is offered up as a sacrifice to the 
party gods. Long live the Boss ! Long live the people that 
they may serve the Boss ! 

What Labor Organizations Teach. 

We not only demand the right to vote, we demand the 
right to co-operate. It is only by co-operating that our ac- 
tion will be effective. 

The Constitution of New York says : "A well regulated 
militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the 
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in- 
fringed. " 



THE OPPORTUNITY 245 

But if each citizen had his gun at home, how much 
opposition would there be to an invading army ? The people 
must be organized into an army, or the right to bear arms is 
of no account. 

The laboring man has the right to work, but when the 
work he can do is controlled by trusts, his right to work 
depends on the willingness of the trust managers to let him 
work. There are over five hundred thousand men employed 
in mines and over fifteen hundred thousand men employed 
on railroads. What an army they make, each one with his 
right to vote and right to work. If the only organization 
they could have would be the employer's association, the em- 
ployer's party, what chance would they have for securing 
their rights? Of course, they would be allowed to work, 
they were made to work, but what would they get for their 
work ? Enough to live on, or else they could not work ! The 
laborers have the right to organize, and it has been the exer- 
cise of their right to organize, the formation of their labor 
organizations that has secured to them their human rights, 
that has secured them better wages and better conditions of 
employment. Suppose the government should recognize the 
employer's association as the only means through which the 
laborers could express themselves, what would be the result? 
The party that controls capital would control labor. Then 
as now the men would act through a party managed by men 
with interests opposed to the laborers. For self preserva- 
tion the laborers have organized themselves, and they have 
organizations in which they can act. They have actual par- 
liamentary assemblies of their members and are not governed 
by committees or bosses. They meet in their locals and 
unions and express themselves and select delegates who 
represent them in their higher assemblies. 

Xow, conceive that all these labor organizations are not 
in existence, think of the employer's associations as the only 



246 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

organizations that have grown up to deal with labor ques- 
tions, and then think of the government passing a law recog- 
nizing these organizations of the capitalists and making it 
necessary for the laborers to get into such organizations 
governed by committees of the organizations ! Would that 
not put the shackles of slavery on every laborer? 

But the officeholders, capitalists and those who seek 
special privileges have formed political parties and control 
them, and now the Governor says the people must act 
through these political parties and must be governed by 
their committees and bosses. Is not this political slavery? 
All men are equal, all have the right to vote, but when they 
are put into the cage of political or industrial "organiza- 
tion", what comfort is such equality? 

We must do what the labor organizations have done, 
but do it on a greater scale, do it not as private individuals 
but do it as the State assembled. We must organize the 
people so they can act of themselves and not be required to 
act under committees or parties. 

Different labor organizations cannot get what they want 
because there are not enough people acting together, there 
is not enough co-operation, and that is the point from which 
we started. The people cannot rule because they cannot 
act together, they do not get what they want because they 
cannot ask for it together. We were made for co-operation, 
and we cannot act like ourselves and cannot get what we 
want, until we are organized for co-operative action. Par- 
ties divide us into bands to fight one another for the benefit 
of those who manage us. If we organize all the people into 
parliamentary assemblies, each little district being an assem- 
bly, the people will be acting altogether. They will rule, 
they will receive what thev desire. 



THE OPPORTUNITY 247 

Why, the very Kingdom of Heaven comes when the 
people are organized to express themselves, for the voice of 
the people is the voice of God. 

The Party Tree. 
Why are parties necessary ? They came to express prin- 
ciples. They remain to graft. They are necessary for 
grafters. He that grafts a branch is entitled to the fruit 
that it produces. The farmer grafts a new variety on an 
apple tree. All the sap of the tree flows through the new 
graft and all the fruit is borne by the new branches. He 
picks the fruit. The politicians have grafted the party 
branch onto the government tree. All the functions of the 
government are exercised by these new branches. All the 
benefits of the government flow through these new branches. 
The flower and the fruit is theirs. Shall not the master 
grafter pick the fruit of his tree ? The tree with its trunk 
and roots embedded in the earth are to supply the sap for the 
branches, and the branches that are grafted grow most vigor- 
ously and need the most sap. What is the frame-work of 
government, the Constitution, the trunk of the tree of state, 
for? What are the spreading roots of the tree, the people, 
for? To supply sap for the branches. The sacred tree of 
the people with its new party branches is sending its life 
fluid up to the leaves, and bearing much fruit, and the boss 
of the orchard sits in its shade and picks the golden apples. 
But when we shall have instituted parliamentary assemblies 
of the people a new branch shall appear on the tree of polit- 
ical life, and the golden apples of the politician shall be 
lemons, even turning to ashes in his grasp. 

Educat'uig the People. 
People get their news from the papers, their information 
and their knowledge of what is going on with respect to the 
government, what laws are passed or being talked about. 



248 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

Take out the newspapers and the people would be left in 
ignorance so far as the running of the government is con- 
cerned. The people are to choose candidates by direct pri- 
maries ! If there were no newspapers the people would not 
know that there were direct primaries. The State takes no 
notice of the intelligence or the ignorance of the people, and 
their knowledge of the condition of the State is not con- 
sidered. Washington said : "In proportion as the structure 
of government gives force to public opinion, it is essential 
that public opinion be enlightened. " 

The partisan press educates the people for the party and 
keeps them in the party. All things work together for the 
boss. What can you believe in the papers on politics? Go 
into a court house, listen to the trial, and tell which of the 
witnesses you can believe. Listen to the lawyers sum up, and 
then say if everybody except the judge at the trial should not 
be sent to jail. It is a wise man who knows what not to 
believe. The government is run by parties. Parties are run 
by politicians. Newspapers are the advocates for the politi- 
cians. Newspapers are the only means of political educa- 
tion the people have, and yet we say the people rule. They 
cannot rule until parties are destroyed and the press is free 
to enlighten the people. 

When the lawsuit is ended, the lawyers speak of each 
other as honest men again. The witness tells the truth as 
soon as he goes off the stand, and the farce of the truth, the 
whole truth and everything but the truth is over. So when 
political parties shall have ceased to be we can believe the 
newspapers for they will cease to be advocates of parties and 
will not need to bring lying witnesses into court to bolster up 
the case, they will tell the truth about public affairs and thus 
make the work of the State light in educating the people. 
The papers will print the proceedings of the assemblies of 
the people. Editors will become teachers. The genius of 



THE OPPORTUNITY 249 

the people will be aroused and all educational forces will 
work together for good. We shall have a government 
through the people. The government will be the assembly of 
the people applying themselves to the business of working 
out their political salvation. 

Making a Difference. 

Think of the Civil War, of the one million men who lost 
their lives, of the two million men who lost their health, of 
the billions of dollars worth of property destroyed, and then 
say if it makes no difference. Think of the years of hatred 
between North and South, of the thousands of mothers, 
wives and sisters mourning for their lost sons, husbands and 
brothers, and then say if it makes no difference. Politics is 
the cause of all wars. Think of the Russian war, of the 
Spanish war, of all wars of history, and then say if it makes 
no difference. Read the "Flight of the Tartars" and say if 
it makes no difference. 

If you are out of work with your wife and children cry- 
ing for bread, does it make any difference ? If your neighbor 
is in the like circumstances, does it make any difference? 
When there is wealth piled mountain high on one hand and 
poverty as deep as hell on the other, does it make and differ- 
ence? Does the palace of the "Captain of Industry" on the 
hill and the hovel of the sick widow in the valley with her 
child working in the sweat shop, picture to you no differ- 
ence ? When industry is run on such a gigantic basis and so 
successfully, and the government is run so poorly, does it 
not make any difference? 

There is wealth enough to cure all poverty and misery 
if it were rightly distributed, and that is the province of gov- 
ernment, that is the difference. It makes no difference 
which party is in power, it makes a difference whether any 
party is in power. The power of the party is what makes 



250 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

the difference. Parties must be destroyed and then we shall 
see the difference. 

Trained men are necessary to manage some small busi- 
ness, but men who cannot read can make laws for ninety 
million people; that is the difference between the running 
of private business and public business under party govern- 
ment. 

In a well regulated factory you find all men graded ac- 
cording to their ability, but in the great government of ninety 
million people you find the college president, the man em- 
ploying thousands of workmen, the tramp, the illiterate, are 
all equal. Brains and experience makes a difference in every 
business except that of governing ninety million people, and 
there experience, education, and character make no differ- 
ence. 

The Galley Slaves. 

The people have built a galley and chained themselves 
to the oars by the bands of political party. The party bosses 
steer the ship over the restless waves for the enjoyment of 
the trust magnates who sit at the. banquet listening to the 
music of the Sirens on the fatal rocks of "More Profits", 
singing the burlesque of "Necessity". 

O, Slaves, think of the "Seven Great Monarchies" that 
are no more, think of the beautiful temple of Karnak, and 
the far famed city of Thebes, think of the millions of em- 
balmed mummies on the banks of the Nile that now are 
ground to phosphate for enriching the farms of people un- 
known to Egypt, think of the King who employed 100,000 
men 30 years to shape his tomb, think of the pyramids and of 
the Sphinx, and think the answer to the riddle. 

Do you not see the rocks of "Profit" rising from the fog, 
and do you hear the Prophets tell how these rocks support 
the earth ? Do you not see your ship is rushing toward the 



THE OPPORTUNITY 251 

reef? Do you not hear the surge now break against the 
shore ? Bend your faces to your knees and pull once more at 
your oars, stretch forth your limbs and send the ship along. 
The men are drunk overhead ; the pilot sees the fog, the 
darkness of "Necessity", then shuts his eyes, holds firm the 
rudder, and awaits the crash. 

In far off times, in distant lands, can you not feel the 
tropic sun burning on the white slave's back? Can you not 
see the toiling millions heaving high the mammoth rocks that 
rear great Cheops 500 feet in air? Have you not knelt be- 
fore the Sphinx to a^k if this "Necessity" must be and if 
there is no higher God than that which drive- you on ; and 
have you turned a wax without an answer, sick at heart, 
overcome with fear and awe ? 

Awake, Ye Slaves, this civilization you are in is but a 
dream. Pull at your chains to see if they are real. The 
bones that now are being ground to fertilize the soil are of 
your children. Aye, let the burning heat that sears your 
backs dry up your tears. The thirst is on your parched 
tongue, the ache is in your palsied limbs, the weight of cen- 
turies bows down your human forms. Awake, you are the 
slaves that polished bright the columns of Karnak and put in 
place the last stone on the top of mighty Cheops. You are 
the slaves that pulled the Roman galleys, you knelt before the 
Sphinx. Know that this past is but a dream, you kneel there 
now and suppliant ask if all these things must be. You kneel 
before the Sphinx of Party, and the Wise Men answer to 
your prayer : "Yes, this must be ; so the Fates have decreed ; 
there is nothing new under the sun, what has been done must 
be done again." 

Fall not asleep again. Tis but a dream, and need be but 
a dream if you will keep awake. Cast off the shackles of the 
-lave and now be free. Say but "I Will" and it is done, and 
a new thing appears under the sun. Come up on deck, cast 



252 THE WASHINGTON PARTY 

overboard your false pilot and take the helm in your own 
hands. The Sun of Liberty rises with your spirit, the fog 
fast disappears, the danger rocks are clear, the ship sails on. 
Sail on, O, beautiful Ship of State, with the parliamentary 
assembly strong and great. "Humanity with all its fears" 
shall find in thee safe refuge. 

Development of the People's Power. 

What developed our great statesmen of the Revolution- 
ary and Constitutional period? The Parliamentary Assem- 
blies of the people. The men of that time stand out as 
giants and not as peanut politicians. They did great deeds 
for the people and fought their battles well. 

Would such as Croker be our leaders if the people had 
their choice in parliamentary assemblies? We would have 
the very best men in every community as our delegates, and 
the very best men in the State as our officers. Government 
is the greatest business and we should have the best men to 
conduct it. If the government rests on a solid foundation, 
it will endure. On what foundation must a government rest 
that it be secure ? The continued approval and confidence of 
the people is the bed rock. They must continually participate 
in their government. The parliamentary assembly of the 
people is the foundation stone for the temple of permanent 
government. Partisanship is an acid which when poured 
over the stones will dissolve them into sand. 

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." If the people 
would retain their power gained through the Declaration of 
Independence and the great war, they must use that power 
or their hands will become first palsied and then tied by 
those who want to use the power the people once possessed. 
A mere boy can bind the hands of the giant when drunk with 
wine. Let us not drink longer of the fruit of the party vine. 



THE OPPORTUNITY 253 

What has caused the great progress in America and in 
the world in the last fifty years? The spirit of democracy. 
The thought of the people has been Liberty, and it is this 
thought that has driven the world along. "Thought is the 
wind, knowledge the sail, and mankind the vessel. " What is 
the sea? Freedom. When we thought the world was flat 
and were afraid of falling off, we were bound down with 
fear. Our enterprises were limited by fear, the mind was 
restrained by fear. We were afraid to think and afraid to 
express our thoughts. New things were the forbidden things 
and might land us into prison or burn us at the stake. It is 
only when knowledge gives us pleasure or profit that we like 
to go to school. The minds of the people have been put to 
sleep by the narcotic of fear, of subordination to authority. 
Man has hid in his cave of ignorance to escape the giants of 
bigotry and superstition. 

But when the world was found to be round, when men 
found they could sail out upon the deep without falling oflf, 
when they found the world of truth lay open before them and 
all they had to do was to open their eyes to see the truth, they 
broke forth from their cave and found their freedom in 
the great round world of facts in the sunlight of truth. Their 
minds began to act, to grow. The night passed and the day 
dawned. Through freedom the people have grown, in free- 
dom they will continue to grow ; but they must maintain 
their freedom. We can go back to the cave if we choose, we 
may be driven back unless we refuse. The schoolhouses are 
our fortresses where we shall take our stand, and Parlia- 
mentary Assemblies are the guns that will fire the shots to be 
heard round the world. 



A WORD TO YOU 



Dear Reader : 

Are you interested ? 

Is not the vision of parties destroyed and the people 
entrusted with power worth striving to make real ? 

What can I do ? What can you do ? Our voices 
may be weak now, but each one who hears us will become 
one of us, one with us. We must act together. Alone we 
can do nothing, together we can do all that is necessary to 
let the people rule. 

The voice of the people shall be heard, but they must 
speak aloud and speak together. They must not cry in the 
wilderness, they must speak from the house tops. They 
have no organization to express themselves. Each one 
must be an organization, a party, to spread the principles of 
the expression of the people's power. 

Will you help me ? Will you let me help you ? Let 
us work together for good. You may be able to suggest 
some plan for common action, which we and others can 
follow. Your suggestions are sought, your co-operation is 
necessary, your aid is desired. Shall WE people rule ? 
Yes. Do it now. Do it for all the people. Write to me 
or see me. I am ready to work with you. 



Excelsior Series of Best Books 

By 

FranK J. SchnecK, Principal 

EXCELSIOR COMMERCIAL INSTITUTE 



Excelsior Business Penmanship, . . . $ .25 

Penmanship by the Inductive Method. 

Inductive Phonography, . . $1.00 

The Best System of Shorthand. 



Modern Commercial Arithmetic, . . $ .85 

A Book that makes Business Arithmetic clear 
without rules. 

The Washington Party $1.00 



If you want to be a Stenographer or a Bookkeeper, with 
a position, or if you want a common English education, 
send for our catalogue. 

Excelsior Commercial Institute 

75 State Street ROCHESTER, N. Y. 



%^m 



mi 



*SEm 






•■/"': 






iHr 



~'&&m 






m 






mm? 



■|3£ ; 







